Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

LEONARD ALBERT BRIGSTOCK.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to present a petition from Mrs. Violet Van der Elst of 7, Addison Road, London, and 45,961 citizens of London, Chatham and Enfield, praying that Leonard Albert Brigstock be reprieved and that his sentence of death be commuted.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Newcastle and Gateshead Waterworks Bill.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Maidstone Corporation Bill.

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Folkestone and District Electricity Bill [Lords].

Golders Green (Jewish) Burial Ground Bill [Lords].

Marlow Water Bill [Lords].

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Quay Extension) Bill [Lords].

Sharpness Docks and Gloucester and Birmingham Navigation Bill [Lords].

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CONTRACTS (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).

Mr. HEPWORTH: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether a fair-wages clause is insisted on in connection with all contracts entered into with his Department?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): All contracts for the supply of goods entered into by the India Office include a fair-wages clause, but there is no such clause in contracts entered into by the High Commissioner. As the Government of India would be unable in practice to enforce a clause of the kind in respect of contracts placed abroad by the Indian Store Department in India, the insertion of a clause in contracts placed in this country by the London Stores Department would be undesirable. The High Commissioner, however, keeps himself informed of all firms which have been struck off the British Government approved list on account of the non-observance of the clause, with a view to refusing to countenance serious objectionable practices followed by tenderers.

Mr. T. SMITH: If I submit a case to the hon. Gentleman, will he look into it?

Mr. BUTLER: Certainly.

Mr. THORNE: Is the fair-wages clause similar to what we have in this country?

Mr. BUTLER: I will certainly investigate it.

PENSIONS.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether there are any retired officers of the British Army part of whose pensions are chargeable to Indian revenues?

Mr. BUTLER: Yes, Sir. A share of the retired pay of all British Army officers who have served in India, proportionate to the length of their service in that country, is borne by Indian revenues.

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. LUNN): 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will publish a statement giving the total amount payable as pensions in the United Kingdom out of Indian revenues, also a list of the pensioners, ecclesiastical, military, civil, and others, receiving these pensions, and the amount in each case?

Mr. BUTLER: The amounts paid in this country to the various classes of pensioner are at present shown in the published accounts of the Government of India. In this connection I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given on 6th and 10th December last to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith). As the officers drawing pension number between eight and nine thousand, the compilation and publication of a detailed list would involve considerable Labour which my right hon. Friend would not feel justified in imposing on his staff.

ALL-INDIA SERVICES.

Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will furnish a statement of the members of the All-India services, showing how many were British and how many were Indians as on 1st January, 1935?

Mr. BUTLER: The figures for 1935 are not yet available. On the 1st January, 1934, there were 2,115 Europeans and 1,256 Indians in the All-India Services.

CENTRAL ASSEMBLY.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India the total number of divisions that have taken place in the Central Assembly since the recent elections; and on how many occasions the Government have been defeated?

Mr. BUTLER: According to my present information the Government of India have been defeated 13 times in the Legislative Assembly since the recent elections. I have no information of the total number of divisions that have taken place during that period.

Sir A. KNOX: In view of that reply, in view also of the fact that in the present Central Assembly there are 40 nominated members out of a total of 145 and that, under the new Constitution, out of 375 there will not be one nominated member, are not the figures rather ominous?

Mr. BUTLER: Such generalisations would be quite out of place. I think the present practice shows the result of irresponsible central government.

SALT DUTY.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that salt exported to India from this country by the Salt Union Company is classified in India for tariff purposes as foreign; and on what grounds this decision has been reached?

Mr. BUTLER: The duty on salt imported into India consists of a duty equal to the excise duty plus an additional duty levied under the Salt (Additional Import Duty) Act, 1931. The latter duty is levied on all salt not produced in India.

TRAVANCORE (CHRISTIANS).

Duchess of ATHOLL: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that under a recent decree of the Travancore State Government, Indian members of the Anglican, Nonconformist, and Roman Catholic (Latin rite) churches are officially classified as members of the depressed classes; that at recent meetings of an Anglican church council and an All-India Catholic congress, resolutions of protest were passed against this classification; and whether the Government of India will make representations to the Government of Travancore on the subject?

Mr. BUTLER: I am not aware of the precise details of the classification in question, but the Travancore Government have stated, in reply to inquiries on the matter, that, according to the classification now in force, Travancore
Christians as a whole are divided into five main groups, of which "depressed classes" is the fifth, representing members of that class converted to Christianity. I have no information as to the resolutions referred to in the second part of the question. The matter is one relating to the internal administration of the State and in the circumstances it would not appear that any question of further action on the part of the Government of India arises.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Is it not the case that the terms of the Travancore Treaty of 1805 have always been construed as justifying representations by the Paramount Power to the Travancore Durbar on questions affecting the welfare of Christians within that State, and that the Durbar have recognised the right of the Paramount Power to tender advice of that kind?

Mr. BUTLER: I must remind the Noble Lady that this is a matter that refers to the internal affairs of the State and that inquiries have already been made. If there is anything substantial in what the Noble Lady has brought to my notice, I am sure that we may rely upon the discretion of the Paramount Power in India to look into the matter.

MADRAS (DEPRESSED CLASSES).

Duchess of ATHOLL: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a deputation from the depressed classes recently waited on the Home Member of the Government of Madras to ask for protection for themselves, when they acquired land for cultivation, against destruction of standing crops and other methods of intimidation practised by caste people; and what reply was given to them by the Home Member?

Mr. BUTLER: I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Will the hon. Gentleman inform himself upon the matter?

Mr. BUTLER: I am ready to make inquiries if the Noble Lady desires.

BENGAL (DISTRICT MAGISTRATES).

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India the reasons for the recent appointment of five retired military officers as additional district
magistrates in the Indian Civil Service in Bengal?

Mr. BUTLER: These appointments have been made to replace casualties due to the terrorist movement. Proposals for the employment of Indian Army officers for this purpose have been under discussion since March, 1932, and were finally approved in March, 1934. Three officers have been recently appointed and two more are to be selected. Indian Army officers with a knowledge of the country form the most readily available source of supply, since officers of the Indian Civil Service cannot at present be spared for transfer from other Provinces.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

RAILWAY SYSTEM.

Mr. MOREING: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information with regard to the proposed appointment of Brigadier-General Hammond and two other British railway experts to examine the organisation of the Chinese railway system and to advise the Chinese Government thereon?

The SECRETARY of STATE, for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): Brigadier-General F. D. Hammond, accompanied by Mr. L. J. L. Lean and Mr. F. J. M. Taylor, both of the Great Western Railway, is leaving on the 4th April for China, where he will probably remain approximately four months in order to examine and advise upon the reorganisation of the Chinese railway system. His appointment was the result of an entirely spontaneous invitation from the Chinese Government and his mission represents an independent technical inquiry with no political associations.

COMMUNIST ACTIVITY.

Sir A. KNOX: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the extent of Communist activities above Hankow and particularly in Szechuan?

Sir J. SIMON: Communists who were driven into North-East Szechuan as a result of a campaign in 1932, commenced a general movement northwards at the beginning of this year. Some of them entered South-West Shensi and captured Ningkiang on the 6th February. After a successful campaign against Communists in Kiangsi and Fukien last year, a body
of them moved westward and some reached South Szechuan in February. An attempt to cross the Yangtse failed, and they are reported to have fallen back into Keeichow. Several Central Government divisions have already arrived in Szechuan.

Mr. COCKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these are not Communists, but Distributivists; otherwise, Chinese diehards?

MANCHURIA

Captain P. MACDONALD: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the official Japanese statement that the promise of Manchukuo to maintain an open door was conditional on recognition by the foreign Governments interested; and whether he will make a statement in this connection at an early date?

Sir J. SIMON: I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to Press reports of the terms of the note addressed by the Japanese Government to His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo regarding oil policy in Manchuria. From a telegraphic report I have received it appears that it is contended in the note that the adherence of the existing regime in Manchuria to the principle of the "open door" was not unconditional. I have not, however, yet received the text of the note, and am unable to make any statement about it.

Captain MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that the maintenance of the open door was part of the original understanding?

Sir J. SIMON: I think I had better see the note before answering further questions.

Mr. THORNE: Japan being outside the League, how is the League to exercise any control over Japan at the present time?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

BICYCLES (INDIA AND CHINA).

Mr. HEPWORTH: 18.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the price of Japanese bicycles imported into India at the present time as compared with the corresponding British product?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The approximate wholesale price in India of Japanese bicycles assembled in India to-day is 22s. each. The cheapest United Kingdom bicycle of standard type, also assembled in India, sells wholesale at slightly under £2. As a result of its superior quality, the United Kingdom product, which enjoys a 10 per cent. ad valorem preference on importation, was responsible for 65 per cent. of the value of India's imports of cycles, parts and accessories in the year 1932–33 and for 71 per cent. in the following year. In these two years the Japanese share of the trade was 23¾ per cent. and 20 per cent. respectively.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that British bicycles are not corresponding, but superior?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I said "of superior quality."

Mr. MOREING (for Mr. CHORLTON): 19.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his attention has been drawn to the efforts being made by the bureau of roads in China and the inter-provincial traffic commission to encourage the use of bicycles on the many new roads now being constructed throughout that country; and whether he will direct the attention of British manufacturers to the possibility of an expanding market for bicycles in China?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am aware of the recent development of road building in China. The Department of Overseas Trade has recently arranged for the Commercial Counsellor in China, who is at present in this country, to make a series of tours to industrial centres and he has seen most of the leading manufacturers interested in the cycle trade in China.

RUSSIA (GRAIN PRODUCTION).

Mr. MARCUS SAMUEL: 20.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will furnish the House with information he has received from His Majesty's ambassador or commercial attaché in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as to the shortage or otherwise of the planned quantity of grain produced under the system of planned economy on the collectivised farms and state and
Individual farms during the years 1932, 1933, and 1934?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: According to Soviet statistics which I have received, a shortage appears to have occurred in the planned quantity of grain produced in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1932, and a surplus in 1933. Figures for 1934 are not available, but it is stated that most districts have fulfilled their deliveries.

Mr. SAMUEL: In view of the great interest that is taken in this matter by all parties, and now that we are in such friendly relations with our Russian friends, might we not inquire whether the shortage has been 100,000,000 tons, more or less, during the last three years?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The figures I have been given do not indicate that to be the case.

TURKEY (BRITISH GOODS).

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether

List of Foreign Countries with which His Majesty' Government have concluded Commercial Agreements terminating before 31st December, 1937.


Country.
Date of Termination of Agreement.
Date on which Notice of Denunciation would have to be given.


Argentina
…
…
7th November,1936
…
7th May,1936 (six months' notice).


Denmark*
…
…
20th June, 1936
…
To be reconsidered before date of termination.


Estonia*
…
…
31st December, 1936
…
30th June, 1936 (six months' notice).


Finland*
…
…
23rd November, 1936
…
23rd May, 1936 (six months' notice).


France
…
…
31st March, 1935
…
31st January, 1935 (two months' notice).


Iceland*
…
…
28th June, 1936
…
28th December, 1935 (six months' notice).


Latvia*
…
…
31st December, 1936
…
30th June, 1936 (six months' notice).


Lithuania*
…
…
31st December, 1936
…
30th June, 1936 (six months' notice).


Norway*
…
…
7th July, 1936
…
7th January, 1936 (six months' notice).


Poland
…
…
31st December, 1936
…
30th June, 1936 (six months' notice).


Sweden*
…
…
7th July, 1936
…
7th January, 1936 (six months' notice).

*His Majesty's Government reserve the right to terminate at three months' notice at any time if undertakings regarding purchase of coal are not fulfilled.

IMPORT DUTIES(BRICKS)

Mr. MITCHESON: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in m view of the possible competition with British brick manufacturers through depreciation of the belga, the Government intends increasing the tariff on imported

any progress has been made in negotiating a clearing arrangement with Turkey so that British goods consigned to Turkey may be cleared from the Customs?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am unable at present to add anything to the information previously given to the House about the commercial negotiations with Turkey, but I hope that it may be possible to do so before long.

TRADE AGREEMENTS.

Captain HEILGERS: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade which trade agreements terminate before the end of the year 1937; and whether he will specify the dates on which notice of denunciation has to be given in each case?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: As the reply is long, and contains a tabular statement, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

bricks so as to adequately protect this important home industry?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): Any question of an increased duty on bricks is a matter for the Import Duties Advisory Committee in the first instance.

CHINA (EXPORT DUTIES)

Mr. MOREING (for Mr. CHORLTON): 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will direct His Majesty's Minister in China to represent to the Chinese Government that the extensive export duties on Chinese goods are both a hindrance to British trade and also an important factor militating against the endeavour to restore china's trade balance?

Sir J. SIMON: The Chinese Government removed the export duty on silk in 1932, on rice and wheat in 1933, and on a very large number of raw materials and articles of manufacture in 1934, while reducing it on others. It may therefore be presumed that the Chinese Government are aware that export duties tend to produce the effects mentioned by my hon. Friend and I do not think that representations would serve any useful purpose. It must be realised that alternative revenue would have to be found and the method of raising it might interfere equally or even more with trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

ROYAL VETERINARY COLLEGE.

Major Sir ALAN McLEAN: 21.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the recommendations contained in paragraphs 44 and 45 of the report of the departmental committee on the reconstruction of the Royal Veterinary College have been given effect to; and, if so, to what extent?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): The Governors have accepted in principle the recommendations to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but action has been deferred until the re-building of the College is approaching completion. I understand that they have recently been advised that it will be necessary for them to apply for a new charter, and that a draft is in course of preparation.

Sir A. McLEAN: Does not my right hon. Friend think, having regard to the large sums which have been provided out of public funds for the reconstruction of this college, that it would be better to reconstitute the government of this college before the money is spent, rather than after?

Mr. ELLIOT: My reply refers to the approaching completion of the rebuilding of the college.

Sir A McCLEAN: Is it not actually going on at the present time?

Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, it is going on now.

ALLOTMENTS, ESHER (ENCLOSURE).

Mr. McENTEE: 22.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether in respect of the application which has been made to his Department by the Esher Urban District Council for consent to enclose 1,497 yards of poor's allotments to assist in the development of Brooks Farm estate, he has made inquiry into the allegation that the said council have already encroached on the Tilt Common and Charity Land, and are proposing further encroachment; if not, whether he proposes to hold a full inquiry into the matter before sanctioning the Esher Urban District Council's application; whether he has in his Department a map showing the exact location of the 20 acres of poor's allotments described in the Cobham Enclosure Act, 1793, as the Tilt, Leigh Hill, and Brook Hill; and whether such map is available for public inspection?

Mr. ELLIOT: Accompanying the application referred to in the first part of the hon. Member's question was a statement that a slightly larger area of land was proposed to be added to the common in substitution. It has since been alleged that the land proposed to be added formed part of the Poor Allotments set out under the Cobham Enclosure Act, 1793. The award and map made under the Act are not in the custody of my Department. The Act provided that copies of the award and plan were to be deposited with the Clerk of the Peace, the vicar and churchwardens of the parish of Cobham, and with the records of the Manor, but I gather that, so far, the Esher Urban District Council have been unable to trace the present whereabouts of a plan. My consent to the proposed enclosure will not be given without due regard being had to all the interests involved.

BARLEY (PATENT FOOD MANUFACTURE).

Captain HEILGERS: 24.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any figures showing the amount of barley used by manufacturers of patent food; and, if so, can he specify the quantities
of home and imported barley, respectively?

Mr. ELLIOT: I regret that I have no information as to the amount of barley used by manufacturers of patent food.

Captain HEILGERS: In view of the very large quantity of lower-grade malting barley that is used by these manufacturers, much of which is imported, will the Minister make an approach to them with a view to their using a greater quantity of the home-produced article?

PEDIGREE CATTLE (CANADIAN IMPORT REGULATIONS).

Sir ROBERT SMITH: 25.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Canadian Government have recently passed regulations prohibiting the importation of pedigree cattle into Canada from this country except through the London quarantine station; that the Canadian import regulations with regard to pedigree cattle are more strict than those imposed by any other Dominion or the Argentine; and that, owing to the accommodation at the London quarantine station being limited, there are large numbers of cattle awaiting shipment to Canada; whether he will consider setting up a quarantine station at Glasgow; and whether he proposes to take any, and what, steps to deal with the situation?

Mr. ELLIOT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I think that my hon. Friend is under some misapprehension. The Canadian regulations for the import of cattle, though stricter than those of the Argentine Republic, are similar to those of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Union of South Africa; and New Zealand at present prohibits entirely the importation of animals direct from the United Kingdom. The difficulties in regard to the export of cattle to Canada arise, not from lack of accommodation at the London Quarantine Station, which is adequate for the requirements of the trade, but from the absence of shipping facilities from London direct to Quebec, the only Canadian Quarantine Station available during the summer. Efforts have been made, and will be continued as opportunity offers, to secure improvement in those facilities. I may add that animals may be exported direct from Scotland to Canada, when Scotland is entirely free from foot-and-
mouth disease. This arrangement was suspended on the outbreak of the disease in Lanarkshire on the 17th January last, but it is hoped that this suspension will be removed about the end of this month.

ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPS.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: 23.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is yet in a position to state what action he proposes to take to accelerate the revision of the Ordnance Survey maps which are, in many cases, much out of date and a cause of inconvenience and delay to local authorities responsible for the preparation of schemes for town and country planning?

Mr. ELLIOT: A substantial addition has been made to the Ordnance Survey Estimates for 1935, and this will enable a beginning to be made in the way of overtaking arrears. I propose, however, to refer to a departmental committee the whole question of the acceleration of the revision of Ordnance Survey maps and the preparation of plans for town and country planning. I hope shortly to be able to announce the composition of the committee and its terms of reference.

Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: Will it be an inter-departmental committee, or a small departmental committee of the Ministry of Agriculture?

Mr. ELLIOT: A departmental committee.

BROADCASTING.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: 27.
asked the Postmaster-General whether further consideration has been given to the setting up of an inquiry directed to the preparation of the new charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that I am not losing sight of this matter; but I am not at present in a position to make any further statement on the subject.

Mr. KNIGHT: In view of the accumulation of public considerations needing inquiry, may I ask my right hon. Friend not to lose more time than is necessary in setting up this inquiry?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISION: 29.
asked the Postmaster-General by what
statutory authority and under what circumstances have relay stations in connection with the British Broadcasting Corporation been forbidden to relay news from foreign stations which in any way refers to the holding or drawing of a national lottery in any foreign or Empire country; and whether he is aware that this news is available to all users of separate wireless receiving sets, the same licence fee being payable in both cases?

Sir K. WOOD: It is one of the conditions under which owners of wireless exchanges are licensed to distribute broadcast programmes to their subscribers that they must observe any instruction received from the Postmaster-General requiring them to refrain from distributing any specific class of broadcast messages. As it is illegal in this country to publish the results of sweepstakes conducted in connection with horse races, notice has been given to the owners of wireless exchanges requiring them to refrain from distributing broadcast messages announcing these sweepstake results.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the same relay stations week by week give full particulars of the odds and betting on football pool competitions, and does he realise the great indignation that there is on the part of the public at this foolish discrimination between two classes of betting?

Sir K. WOOD: The discrimination is not of my making.

Mr. LIDDALL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Members of Parliament to-day do not know whether they have drawn a horse or not?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 30.
asked the Postmaster-General which broadcasting station caused the interference with the reception of wireless messages broadcast from Irish Free State stations on 26th March; and whether this action was taken with the knowledge and approval of His Majesty's Government?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If I send my right hon. Friend particulars of a complaint
from a constituent, will he investigate it?

Sir K. WOOD: indicated assent

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEGRAPH SERVICE.

Mr. HEPWORTH: 28.
asked the Postmaster-General the loss entailed in carrying on the telegraph service at the present time; and whether he contemplates a reduction in the present rates so as to increase business?

Sir K. WOOD: The loss on the Telegraph Service Account for the year ended 31st March, 1934, computed on a commercial account basis, was £653,591. As I stated on the 18th March in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, E. (Brigadier-General Nation), an investigation of telegraph charges is being actively pursued; but I am not yet in a position to make any further statement on the subject.

KIRKWALL AND LERWICK (NIGHT TELEGRAM-LETTERS)

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 32.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will arrange for the establishment of a night telegram-letter service to Kirkwall and Lerwick?

Sir K. WOOD: I will see whether it is possible to make these arrangements.

LETTERS IN TRANSIT (OPENING)

Sir W. DAVISON: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can inform the House of any precedent under the common law where the Secretary of State has directed the Postmaster-General to open the private letters of private citizens who are not committing any unlawful act?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Yes, Sir, there are precedents, but it is of the very essence of the power of authorising the opening of postal packets that information should not be given as to the occasions or the manner of its use.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does my right hon. Friend realise the growing indignation on the part of the public at this new system of espionage into private corre
spondence of individuals who admittedly are not breaking the law?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

DUNDEE CORPORATION EMPLOYES.

Mr. THORNE: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour why his Department refuses to refund the balance of the contributions, prior to 1928, paid in error to the Unemployment Insurance Fund by the employés in the baths department of the Dundee Corporation; whether he is aware that they were required to pay contributions until it was decided in 1926 that such employés were not eligible to either contribute or receive benefit; that this information was not circulated by his Department to all local authorities employing such workpeople; that these employés have been paying contributions, with the approval of his inspectors, from the date of their employment under the Dundee Corporation and, in some cases, from the inception of the Act, 1910, to March, 1934, when notice to end the contributions was given; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to why these contributions were not returned in full?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am making inquiry, as the hon. Member requests, and will write to him as soon as possible.

Mr. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of linking up with State insurance all the men and women that he possibly can, especially where they are in regular employment?

Mr. HUDSON: I think that that is generally the effect of the Act which was passed last year.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS, ABERTILLERY.

Mr. DAGGAR: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the copy of the resolution passed at the ordinary monthly meeting of the Abertillery Urban District Council, in which it is stated that an increasing number of recipients are being subjected to reductions in their transitional payments under the regulations now in operation; and, if so, what action does he propose, in view of the understanding that instructions have been issued that such reductions should not be made?

Mr. HUDSON: I am informed that a copy of the resolution referred to was also forwarded by the Abertillery Urban District Council to the Unemployment Assistance Board, which has requested the council to furnish particulars of the cases upon which their resolution is based.

Mr. DAGGAR: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to give consideration to cases if I submit them to him?

Mr. HUDSON: I think that, as the resolution is directed against the action, or alleged action, of the board, it is only, reasonable that in the first instance the council should provide particulars, so that the matter can be investigated. After that has been done, no doubt my Department will have the opportunity of considering it.

Mr. DAGGAR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Department has already been met in connection with this matter, and is he not prepared to consider cases based on experience of this kind?

Mr. HUDSON: That is a different question.

SPECIAL AREAS (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS).

Miss WARD: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour what financial provisions he proposes to make in order that the work of Mr. Malcolm Stewart may be carried on without interruption?

Mr. HUDSON: As indicated in Note 3 to the Estimate (Class V, 14) for the Special Areas Fund, 1934 (H.C. 12, 1934–35) such further estimates for the fund as may be necessary will be presented to Parliament on the exhaustion of the present Vote of £2,000,000.

Miss WARD: In view of the fact that certain persons persist in stating that £2,000,000 is the sum total that will be spent in the depressed areas, will the hon. Member take steps to make some outstanding statement on the subject?

Mr. HUDSON: I hope that this question and answer will secure the purpose that my hon. Friend has in mind.

FOREIGN POLICY.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Dominion Governments have expressed their opinion of the Imperial Foreign policy
now being pursued by His Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether he can tell the House what that opinion is?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have been asked to reply. Every effort is made to keep His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions in touch with the policy and action of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in respect of foreign affairs. It is not for me to voice the opinions of Dominion Governments, but I can at least say that I have had no indication that any of them dissents from the general foreign policy which we are pursuing.

Mr. BEVAN: Did the Cabinet consult the Dominions as to the nature of the proposals contained in the White Paper before the proposals were issued?

Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend ought to make himself acquainted with the Imperial Conference decisions. Those decisions are clear and definite, that no Government can involve another Government in a war, but every opportunity is taken to inform the Dominions of every step; and, so far as I am concerned, I say without hesitation that no Dominion has expressed any dissent of any sort or kind from the foreign policy of the Government.

MILK (NUTRITIVE VALUE).

Mr. COVE: 46.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to give the House any information as to the proposed inquiry into the nutritional value of milk at certain schools and approved centres?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir. The Milk Marketing Board for England and Wales and the Scottish Milk Marketing Board have submitted to the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself particulars of certain arrangements for conducting an inquiry into the nutritional value of milk. These arrangements have now been approved for the purpose of Exchequer contributions under Section 11 of the Milk Act, 1934, and in accordance with the provisions of that Section have been laid before Parliament and are now available to the House. The scheme is supplementary to the Milk-in-Schools Scheme,
and it is hoped that the information which will be collected will not only be of great value to those engaged upon nutritional research and in connection with public health and education services, but will also have an important bearing upon the problem of increasing the demand for liquid milk in this country. As will be seen from the particulars in the White Paper, the inquiry is under the supervision of a representative expert sub-committee of the Advisory Committee on Milk Publicity of the Milk Marketing Board for England and Wales and is being conducted by experienced medical officers working in conjunction with school medical officers and teachers. It is on a large scale, covering some 8,000 children and is expected to last for some 12 months.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Will not my right hon. Friend, instead of having only medical officers, have on this inquiry people from the Dairy Research Department at Reading, who are knowledgable in this matter?

Mr. ELLIOT: I think that, if my hon. and gallant Friend will read the White Paper, he will see that the various departments concerned are fully represented.

LIFT ACCIDENTS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON: 48.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the steady increase of fatal and other accidents, especially to juveniles, in connection with electric lifts in non-factory premises, and of the fact that such accidents are not reportable and unless fatal are the subject of no inquiry, he will invite the Lift Makers' Association to confer with his department with a view to the production of a standard specification with the highest possible factor of safety to which all existing passenger lifts must conform within a stated period?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that a committee has been set up by the British Standards Institution, in consultation with lift makers and others, to prepare standard specifications, but that the modernisation of all existing lifts would be a difficult and very costly matter. I am exploring the situation and shall be communicating with the Lift Makers' Association.

Mr. THORNE: In consequence of the numerous accidents in connection with these private lifts, cannot the right hon. Gentleman find some power or authority to be given either to the factory inspectors or to the local inspectors for the purpose of examining these lifts?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have said that I am exploring the situation, and I cannot say more.

LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE MANAGEMENT)

Mr. THORNE: 49.
asked the Home Secretary whether the employés under the Carlisle State Management scheme are designated as civil servants; and, if so, whether they will be entitled to participate in the Government's Civil Service superannuation scheme?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The employés under the Carlisle State Management Scheme fall to be dealt with under the Superannuation Acts applicable to the Civil Service. The supervisory and clerical staffs are normally established civil servants. The industrial employés are unestablished.

Mr. THORNE: Can the Home Secretary give any reason why these men and women are not recognised as civil servants, as they are working for the State in exactly the same way as anybody else?

Sir J. GILMOUR: They do not differ from others in similar positions.

HERR BERTHOLD JACOB (DISAPPEARANCE).

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 51.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can make any statement with regard to the investigation now being carried on in this country by Dr. Ganz, Attorney-General to the Basle Government, in conjunction with Scotland Yard, with a view to ascertaining whether certain persons in this country were implicated in the plot which resulted in the kidnapping of the Jewish journalist, Herr Berthold Jacob, from Basle to Germany on 9th March?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on Thursday last to the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot).

Sir C. CAYZER: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any foundation
for the views expressed by the French and Swiss police that the kidnapping of Herr Jacob was planned weeks ago by a German counter-refugee organisation having branches in Paris and London, and, in this case, whether the Home Office is taking any steps to round up and deport the members of the organisation?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot express any views on that matter.

JUVENILE OFFENDERS.

Mr. CADOGAN: 52.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can give statistics as to the number of male persons found guilty of indictable offences by juvenile courts or ordinary courts of summary jurisdiction during the years 1930 to 1933, inclusive, showing separately the numbers under the age of 14, those of 14 and under 16, and those of 16 and under those of 16 and under 21?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the answer includes a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer

Statement showing the number of Male Persons found Guilty of Indictable Offences by Juvenile Courts or Ordinary Courts of Summary Jurisdiction during the years 1930 to 1933.

Age.
1930.
1931.
1932.
1933.


Under 14
6,488
7,191
8,449
9,179


14 and under 16
4,682
4,537
4,302
4,292


16 and under 21
9,402
9,566
10,613
9,545


21 and over
22,652
23,874
25,349
24,558


Total Found Guilty.
43,224
45,168
48,713
47,574

STATE PENSIONS.

Mr. A. BEVAN: 53.
asked the Home Secretary the number of persons who are in receipt of State pensions above £2 per week and who have acquired wage-earning occupations since their retirement?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): The information desired by the hon. Member is not available.

Mr. BEVAN: Ought not such information to be collected immediately? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great indignation in many part of the country against persons with adequate State pensions having jobs in addition; and will he take steps to obtain the information?

Mr. COOPER: I do not think that the labour which would be involved in obtaining this information, all of which could never be obtained, would be worth while.

Mr. BEVAN: Would not it be possible for all persons in receipt of State pensions to answer whether in fact they were in receipt of incomes from other jobs?

Mr. COOPER: We would have to circularise all persons in receipt of naval, military or civil pensions, and it would entirely be for them to decide whether they wished to make any return of any income that they were receiving. I do not think that the State could do anything to prevent such persons from enjoying the pensions to which they were entitled.

Mr. BEVAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that they interfere with the recipients of unemployment benefit, and cannot they do the same with regard to the recipients of pensions?

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Are not these State pensions really deferred pay?

Mr. COOPER: Yes.

TRANSPORT (ROADS IMPROVEMENT ACT)

Sir A. WILSON: 54.
asked the Minister of Transport the approximate mileages of roads upon which building and improvement lines, under the Roads Improvement Act, 1925, the Public Health Act, 1925, and the latest Surrey, Essex and Middlesex County Council Acts, have been prescribed from 1925 to date?

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. Up to the 31st March, 1934, building and improvement lines had been prescribed under these Acts upon approxi-2,500 miles of roads.

Sir A. WILSON: Will the Minister of Transport draw attention to the very
satisfactory progress which has been made in this matter, and point out to local authorities that if they continue at this speed further legislation will become unnecessary?

Captain HUDSON: I will convey that question to my hon. Friend.

MEMEL TERRITORY.

Mr. BOSSOM (for Mr. HALLCAINE): 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the nature of our intervention in connection with Memel with the other signatory Powers to the Memel Statute; and whether he can make a statement with regard to this matter?

Sir J. SIMON: As stated in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) on the 18th March, representations were recently made to the Lithuanian Government by His Majesty's Government, the French Government and the Italian Government. In these representations the Lithuanian Government were informed that the present situation in the Memel territory, in which no Directorate possessing the confidence of the Chamber exists, is incompatible with the principle of autonomy guaranteed to the territory by Statute, and that it is the duty of the Lithuanian Government to bring this situation to an end without delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

CENTRAL SCHEME (AMENDMENT) ORDER.

Miss WARD: 36.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give the House any information as to the position of the coal industry as a result of the working of the Central (Coal Mines) Scheme (Amendment) Order, 1934?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have asked the central council and the district executive boards to furnish me, as soon as possible, with detailed information on the first quarter's working of the amended schemes in force under the Coal Mines Act, 1930. I will then consider the publication of a report based on the information I receive.

MINING ROYALTIES.

Miss WARD: 37.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether any decision has yet
been come to with regard to the unification of mining royalties?

Mr. E. BROWN: I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Miss WARD: When will the hon. Member be in a position to make a statement in view of the fact that he said to me some time ago that the matter was being actively pursued Can he say how long active pursuit lasts?

Mr. BROWN: I cannot say that.

Mr. T. SMITH: Can the hon. Member say whether or not it is intended to bring in this Bill during the present Session?

Mr. BROWN: That question should not be addressed to me.

BRITISH ARMY: ROYAL ARTILLERY (PROMOTION SCHEME).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE (for Brigadier-General NATION): 47.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can give the House an outline of the decisions arrived at as a result of the recommendations of the Stanhope Committee on the promotion of officers of the Royal Artillery?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): As the answer is of considerable length, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many officers he hopes will take advantage of this scheme?

Mr. HACKING: I think 100 of the rank of major and below.
Following is the answer:
For promotion in any arm of the Service to be satisfactory two things are necessary. There must be an even intake of officers at one end, followed by a sufficient outlet at the other. Owing to the number of officers still serving who were commissioned during the years of the Great War, the intake into the Royal Artillery has been very uneven, and a large block exists to-day. Some of the officers in the lower half of this block, and those immediately below it, have consequently very little chance of promotion.
The Army Council have, therefore, decided to offer special terms of retirement to officers in the block.
One hundred officers in the Royal Artillery, of the rank of Major, and below, who were appointed to regular commissions with seniority prior to 1st January, 1919, will be allowed to retire on special terms similar to those offered to officers of the Infantry of the Line. These terms will be open for a period of three months for Officers serving at home, and six months for Officers serving abroad. At the end of this period, all applications will be considered at the War Office, and those who are selected to retire under this scheme will be gazetted out in December, 1935, and January, 1936.
It will be realised that these terms are entirely voluntary, and their object is two-fold:

(a)to thin out the block, and improve the prospects of officers who remain;
(b)to allow those officers whose prospects in the Army, owing to this block in promotion, are unsatisfactory, to retire with an increased pension at an age when they still have a reasonable chance of employment in the civilian world.

These retirements would undoubtedly help promotion as regards the immediate problem of thinning out the block, but there still remains the fact that in peacetime there is insufficient outlet to ensure a reasonable flow of promotion.
To improve the latter aspect of the situation the Army Council have decided to take the following steps:

1. To increase the number of Lieutenant-Colonels by a maximum of ten; most of these will he employed in command of Territorial Army Artillery Brigades, where a suitable Territorial Army Officer is not available, and where the Territorial Army authorities wish for the services of a regular officer to be made available.
2. To institute the Selected Majors List for the Royal Artillery.


(a) The records of all Artillery Majors with two years' service, or over, as substantive Major, or five years as Brevet Major, will be considered by the Selection Board. Those who, it is considered,
27
will eventually be fit for promotion to Lieutenant-Colonel will be placed on a list to be termed the Selected Majors' List, from which Lieutenant-Colonels will be chosen as vacancies occur. Those who, it is considered, will not be fit for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel will not be allowed to serve on until they reach the age limit for Majors, but will be placed on half pay twelve months after they have been rejected for the Selected Majors' List, provided they have then completed at least three years' service in the substantive rank, and have attained the age of 45 years.
(b) As regards the officers placed on the Selected Majors' List, it is not anticipated that it will be possible to promote them all in due course to Lieutenant-Colonel; the number of vacancies will probably not allow of this, and there may also be cases in which Majors prove not to be so good as was at first considered probable. Officers who fail to secure promotion will come under the provision of Article 493 of the Royal Warrant for Pay, etc., 1931, as permanently superseded; and as a general rule they will be placed on half-pay. Such officers will be considered for a step in rank on retirement, such step to carry no financial benefits. This step in rank will not be given automatically to all officers placed on the Selected Majors' List and not subsequently promoted, but only to those who are considered to merit promotion, but fail to be selected. The effect of these two steps will be:

(1) To widen the opportunities for promotion at the top, and so quicken the flow of promotions in the ranks below Lieutenant-Colonel.
(2) To improve, in addition, the promotion prospects of officers below the rank of Major.

The Army Council have approved of the introduction of the Selected Majors' List for all combatant arms of the Service.
These are the broad outlines of the scheme; the details will be communicated to the Army in the course of the next few days.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILLS REPORTED.

RHYL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

SOUTH SHIELDS CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Charles Stuart Taylor, Esquire, for the County of East Sussex (Eastbourne Division).

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP C).

Sir Henry Jackson reported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills; That Mr. Stephen Davies, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present within one hour after the time appointed for the meeting of the Committee this day.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Considered in Committee [FOURTEENTH DAY—Progress,28th, March].

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 175.—(Executive authority in respect of railways to be exercised by Federal Railway Authority.)

3.31 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): Before I move the Amendment that stands in my name, there are one or two observations that I think hon. Members in all quarters of the House would desire me to make. Since the last meeting of the House there has befallen us one of those swift and unexpected bereavements that unite us all in a tribute to a departed colleague and a word of sympathy to his wife and family. Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland brought to this House a record of University achievement, in debate, in the schools and on the river seldom equalled in our experience. For 25 years he was an honoured and distinguished figure in our midst, standing out pre-eminently for integrity of purpose, industry in the public service and sympathy of outlook. Many of us might envy the circumstances of his death, swift, and we hope painless, in the midst of his friends, following the pursuit that he loved so dearly. While many of us may envy the circumstances in which he died, the very suddenness of his end makes the blow to his wife and family the more overwhelming. In the name of the Government, and I hope in the name of every hon. Member of this House, we offer to his wife, his family and his intimate friends our most sincere sympathy.

3.33 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will you allow me, Sir, to say how all of us on this side of the House would like to join in the expression of sympathy to Lady Steel-Maitland and her family. It was my very great privilege to know Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland many years. He came to my home over 30 years ago in connection with a Poor Law Commission and from that time right on to the end, I think I may say that, whatever keen political divisions of opinion there were between us, we remained very good friends indeed. I respected him very much, and so did all my
friends, and to-day we join with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in expressing to his wife and family our very deepest sympathy and our very highest respect. We join in saying that the House has lost a very distinguished Member and the country has lost a very efficient hardworking public servant.

The CHAIRMAN: On Clause 175 there is no Amendment on the Order Paper, but the Secretary of State has handed in manuscript Amendment which I do not think will give the Committee any difficulty in considering it now, more especially as I understand copies of the manuscript Amendment have been made available to hon. Members.

3.30 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, in page 103, line 7, at the end, to add:
Notwithstanding anything in this section the Federal Government or its officers shall perform such functions for securing safety on railways as in the opinion of the Federal Government should be performed by persons independent of the authority and of any railway administration.
I apologise to the Committee for having to propose this as a manuscript Amendment. It raises a simple point which I hope hon. Members will be able to appreciate and deal with at once, and save time on subsequent stages of the Bill. It was pointed out that the Clause in its present form might imply that the Federal Government would not be responsible for the safety of railways; that any safety provisions with regard to the Indian railways would depend entirely on the Federal Railway Board. I think it will be the view of hon. Members that questions of safety ought to be taken out of the control of a board whose principal interest is to run the railways on business lines and make a good return on the capital. The new Sub-section will make the Federal Government responsible for the safety of railways just as the Government are responsible for the safety of railways in this country. Here the Board of Trade are responsible and in the case of India it is the Federal Ministry of Communications. In any case, I suggest to the Committee that the wise course is to make clear what we have always intended, but which perhaps may not have been sufficiently clear, that it is the Federal Government which is primarily responsible for the safety of railways.

3.34 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I think this is the right principle to follow; that where a trading body has been set up there should still remain appropriate powers with the Government itself. I see no objection to the new Sub-section, but I should like to know how far it extends. Does it include the laying down of regulations for the safety of the travelling public, the holding of inquiries in the case of accidents, and does it also include safety provisions for the staff?

3.34 p.m.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY PAGE CROFT: It is extremely difficult for the Committee to deal with a manuscript Amendment which has only been placed in our hands at this moment. We have not been able to appreciate its importance. Although this particular Amendment appears to be in every way a legitimate Amendment to the Bill I hope the Secretary of State will realise that owing to the pressure with which the Bill is being rushed through the handing in of manuscript Amendments makes our task rather difficult, and that it will not be necessary for us in the future to have to deal with manuscript Amendments so early in our deliberations. I do not say that in any hostile spirit. I hope also that the Secretary of State will find it convenient at some stage on this Clause to indicate whether there has been any adjustment of the difficulties with the Princes, who quite definitely said that they could not accept the Clause as it stood. It would be out of order to raise that point on this Amendment but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us how far he has gone in his communications with the Princes.

3.36 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: Although the new Sub-section may be necessary I think we should have a little more explanation in regard to it. It speaks of the functions for securing safety on railways. Does that include the safety of passengers? Does it include measures for protection against sabotage in times of civil disturbances, or does it contemplate that the Federal Government will make changes and substitute steel sleepers for wooden sleepers and automatic signalling for the present system, when it is necessary to do so for the safety of passengers. I would like the Secretary of State to indicate what safety means. It might
be necessary, as these changes are being introduced by a manuscript Amendment, to reconsider the matter before Report stage and define a little more precisely what is meant by the safety of railways; how far Federal Government are to be responsible and how far the Federal railways authority is to go. If we are going to constitute a new railway authority who are to have complete control over the whole railways of India it is necessary that no conflict should arise owing to the loose wording of the Bill because of an Amendment introduced as a manuscript Amendment at the 11th hour, and which therefore has not been very carefully considered by the Committee. We have had no opportunity of consulting railway authorities as to whether the proposal would introduce any trouble. I should like to know whether the Federal Government is to have the last word as to what the equipment of the railways shall be in order to secure the safety of the travelling public. The question of sabotage during civil disturbances is obviously a function of the Government.

3.39 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I should like to support the appeal that the Secretary of State should be a little more explicit as to what is meant by safety. This is a rather surprising Amendment. I ventured to express doubts as to whether the railways would really be safe for the transport of troops in the event of their transference to Indian Ministers. The supporters of the proposal have endeavoured to reassure me by saying, "Oh, the railway administration is to be under a board which will be entirely nonpolitical," and great stress has been laid on the assumed non-political character of the board. I do not feel sure that it will be so non-political. But it does seem to me rather striking, when so much emphasis has been laid on the fact that the board is to be non-political and that that is regarded as of first importance by the Government, that now the Government should bring forward an Amendment which seeks to remove this question of safety, which is the greatest question there can be in connection with the railways, out of the hands of the authority set up.

3.41 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I am not at all surprised that several hon. Members have
questioned me about a manuscript Amendment. I say again that this is the first time I have done it, and that I hope not to have another manuscript Amendment to move. There are in this Amendment none of the dangers suggested in the questions put to me. Let me first answer the question of the Noble Lady. Questions of defence do not arise at all here. Questions of defence will arise under Sub-section (4) of Clause 177, under which the Governor-General can give whatever directions he thinks fit for the safe conduct of the troops, and so on.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I quite understand that, of course, and that the Governor-General can give whatever orders he wishes; but it may be that there will be great political pressure on members of the railway staff, in time of civil disturbance—pressure which they might find it very difficult to resist.

Sir S. HOARE: I can reassure my Noble Friend that that has nothing to do with this Sub-section. This Subsection deals with safety appliances, brakes, automatic coupling and so on. My answer to the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) is "Yes" to all three of his questions. We intend that the Federal Government, speaking generally, should do what the Board of Trade does in this country. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) drew attention to points connected with the difficulties raised by the Princes. He said that the Clause had occasioned the Princes a certain amount of doubt. Their doubts, however, were due, I think, to misunderstanding. They took the view that it was not our intention to make the Federal Government responsible for the safety of appliances. This Amendment deals with one of the points about which the Princes were in doubt, as indeed were experts in British India. It was always our intention to include safety in the field of the Federal Government's activities. I would recall to hon. Members the report of an expert committee which sat about 18 months ago and considered the whole question of the rail-way board. It was a committee of experts in railway administration in India and in this country, and this Amendment embodies one of their recommendations. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) asked
me a question which I cannot quite remember.

Sir B. PETO: I want the Secretary of State to make it clear that on questions of safety, appliances of all sorts, couplings and so forth, the Federal Government and not the railway board is to be the final authority.

Sir S. HOARE: The Federal Government will be responsible for safety just as the Board of Trade is responsible in this country. I think that that answers my hon. Friend's question.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does my right hon. Friend not mean that the Federal Government will have not only a primary responsibility, but a secondary responsibility and a supervising authority?

Sir S. HOARE: Certainly; it will obviously be the primary duty of the railway administration to see that passengers are carried safely, and so on, but it will be an additional duty of the Federal Government to insist upon proper precautions being taken. I think I have dealt with the several points raised. I am grateful to the Committee for allowing me to move a manuscript Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

3.45 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: Whereas the Amendment which has just been carried seems to be a thoroughly sound one, I think it will be agreed that it does not in any way meet the main point at issue between the Princes and the Secretary of State. It is opportune at this moment briefly to call attention once more to the White Paper. On page 11, it says:
The State railways are thus placed in subordination of State railways to a railway authority which is almost entirely British Indian in outlook.
Is not that the main principle involved? The Clause states:
The executive authority of the Federation in respect of the construction, maintenance and operations of railways in India shall be exercised by a Federal railway authority.
I submit with great respect that that is precisely the point to which the Princes.
took objection, unless the Secretary of State can say that it is to be raised at another point on another Amendment. It is quite clear that according to the White Paper the States contemplated their own railway authority to be co-ordinate with the Federal railway authority, and that in consequence they envisaged a tribunal to which, in cases of dispute, both parties could refer, and which could hold a balance between them. The paragraph in the White Paper to which I referred also contains this:
Under the Bill a dominant authority has been set up, and therefore the committee feel that they are unable to accept the railways scheme set up by the Bill.
That is very definite. This would appear to be one of those cases where we are discussing a whole series of Clauses to which the Princes up to date take fundamental exception. I was wondering whether the Secretary of State would consider postponing consideration of the remainder of the Clauses dealing with railways until he has been able to get into closer contact with the Princes' representative.

The CHAIRMAN: I ought to say one word on that point, as it may not be convenient for me to permit the Secretary of State to answer the question. The hon. and gallant Member will see that in the White Paper from which he is quoting there is a reference to Clause 187. Probably that is the place at which to raise the point to which he refers.

Sir H. CROFT: But we are in a difficulty, because it is stated on page 42 of the White Paper:
Questions in connection with railways will be separately dealt with.
We have had no information about that. Consequently, the Committee is in the air as to what are the proposals for meeting the Princes. The Secretary of State on Thursday raised a question with regard to a Clause recently passed, and then he was able to tell us that he hoped that some adjustment had been made. Since then one has heard rumours which would lead one to believe that that may have been a pious opinion but that it has not been accepted by the Princes because the Princes have never met to consider the question. I wonder whether a great deal of time would not be saved if we could be told now whether there
has been any adjustment. Otherwise, it looks as if this Clause and some other Clauses might have to be recommitted. Our efforts in this Committee have been directed to working according to the agreed time-table and I think the Secretary of State will admit that we have done everything to facilitate the progress of the business. We have refrained from discussing a series of Clauses which might have been discussed in order that the Committee might get on to this important part of the Bill. If we are to have a fresh discussion on this matter at a later stage, if we are to have the Secretary of State coming back here later with suggestions which have been made on this matter as between the Princes and his advisers then it may be necessary to ask for additional time outside the terms of the agreement.

3.52 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I do not think that either of the two possibilities mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend need be seriously taken into account. I do not think that either a postponement of this Chapter of the Bill or the allocation of additional time for our discussions will be necessary. As far as I can judge there is no reason whatever for postponing this Chapter of the Bill. Clause 187 is the Clause against which a certain amount of criticism has been directed both by the Princes and also from British India. When we reach that point in the Bill I am going to suggest that we should omit Clause 187. I am then prepared to tell the Committee the kind of alternative which I propose. That alternative I will put down in the form of a New Clause and I think my hon. and gallant Friend will find, when we reach that stage, that I am meeting not only the criticisms mentioned in the White Paper—the criticisms of the Princes—but also the criticisms which have been made by British India.

Sir H. CROFT: May we have the terms of the proposed new Clause?

Sir S. HOARE: I think I had better wait until we reach the appropriate part of the Bill.

Sir H. CROFT: Would it not be better to indicate its terms to the Committee now. Otherwise we may not have time to consider it properly.

Sir S. HOARE: Of course I was not going to ask the Committee to consider it to-day. I can tell the Committee what it is but I do not know that it would be in order to do so now.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Would it not be more convenient to tell the Committee now? It might bridge a gap.

Sir S. HOARE: I think it is really a matter for the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN: I think perhaps it is just one of those matters in which the authority of the Chair might be used to stretch the ordinary procedure a little in order to allow the Secretary of State if he so desires to make a statement as to the proposed new Clause in answer to a request from those hon. Members who are specially interested in this Clause we are now on. I would point out, however, that Clause 175 which we are now discussing, establishes the railway authority, and I do not think the proposed new Clause if indicated by the Secretary of State ought to be discussed on this Clause. If there is to be a discussion on the negativing of the later Clause it must come at the proper time.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I was not suggesting that we should discuss it now but only that it would facilitate matters if we had before us at this time the text of the new Clause which is to be substituted for Clause 187. I think the Secretary of State is willing to give it to the Committee but there is no question of discussing it on this Clause. We should keep the discussion until a later stage.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: If I may be permitted as a private Member to intervene, I would point out that it is extraordinarily difficult for private Members to follow this discussion properly. I am not quarrelling with the right hon. Gentleman for having introduced a manuscript Amendment. Indeed I think it is amazing that he has got so far without having had to move more manuscript Amendments, but apparently a later Clause in connection with this railway authority is to be cut out of the Bill and a new Clause introduced. That makes it difficult for the Committee as a whole to follow what is happening. We are now setting up a railway board—

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the subject matter of Clause 187 or any other later Clause to be discussed now. I have said that perhaps the Rules might be stretched a little in order to allow the Secretary of State to answer the question which has been put to him, simply by indicating what it is intended to do by the proposed new Clause but I cannot go further than that.

Sir H. CROFT: Of course, I take it that we would still be able to vote against the omission of the Clause if we thought it necessary to do so.

Sir S. HOARE: Is it the wish of the Committee that I should explain the matter now or that I should wait until we reach Clause 187?

Mr. CHURCHILL: All that we want to know is the text of the proposed new Clause.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I had no intention of discussing Clause 187. I was merely pointing out the difficulty in which Members of the Committee find themselves, in having to decide whether or not to set up the board which is proposed under the Clause we are now discussing. We have difficulty in knowing whether we ought to vote for this Clause or not. I am willing to work in with any agreement which is the general wish of the Committee. Everyone knows that I should be the last to break any such general agreement but it is exceedingly difficult for the ordinary person to follow this discussion.

Sir S. HOARE: Perhaps I had betetr explain in a few sentences the change which we propose to make in relation to Clause 187. Under that Clause a body is set up for settling disputes between rival railway interests in India. As the Clause stands, that tribunal would only deal with disputes in which railways belonging to the Indian Princes are involved. My first proposal would be to extend the scope of the tribunal and enable it to deal with disputes concerning railways, whether they are railways owned by the Princes or railways in British India. The second change which I propose is in connection with the tribunal itself. It has been pointed out both by the representatives of the Indian States and also by experts in British India that the tribunal, as it is set up under Clause
187, is too vague and indefinite, and that something much more definite is needed. It is proposed therefore that the personnel should not be temporary people appointed for a particular inquiry, but that there should be a chairman with the standing of a Federal Court judge appointed for a length of time, say five years, which will give him an opportunity of getting continuous knowledge of the problems with which he is dealing. Further instead of the assessors suggested in Clause 187 as it stands—two people selected from each of the parties in a dispute and therefore partisans on one side or the other in the dispute—it is proposed that we should have a panel of six impartial people from whom the Governor-General would select two, and that that panel should be of a permanent rather than a temporary character. The Committee will see therefore that the proposed new Clause will be devoted to making this tribunal in the first place a body which will be competent to settle railway disputes in whatever part of India they may arise, and secondly, a body composed of a personnel more permanent in character and more impartial in outlook than that indicated in Clause 187.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 176.—(Composition, etc., of Railway Authority.)

3.59 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, in page 103, line 8, to leave out from the beginning to the second "the" in line 10.
May I ask whether it would be convenient to take this Amendment along with two others which stand in the name of some of my hon. Friends on this Clause?

The CHAIRMAN: As a matter of fact, I was not proposing to call those Amendments, for the reason that I think the point of the Amendments could be discussed sufficiently on this one. If it should turn out, as the result of this discussion, that they should be put, and if necessary, divided upon, that can be done, but the point can be discussed on this Amendment.

Mr. JONES: In Clause 175 we have stated what shall be the executive
authority to deal with the construction, maintenance and operation of railways in India. Now we come to the question of the composition of the railway authority. I know that in this matter we shall be in violent disagreement with hon. and right hon. Members on the other side concerning the method by which this railway authority is to be constituted. There are to be, if I remember rightly, seven persons, of whom three are to be nominated by the Governor-General in his discretion, and, in addition, he will be entitled, in his discretion, to nominate the president. We take the opposite view. In our judgment, these people who are to be called upon to exercise the functions of membership of the Federal Railway Authority should be nominated by the Indian Government, although formally they may be appointed by the Governor-General. I quite appreciate what is at the back of the minds of hon. Members opposite. They want to make sure that this statutory authority will be entirely outside party politics, as they call it. I confess that I am not over-impressed by arguments of that sort, for wherever I see authorities in this country, I discern numbers of people whose politics are fairly well known, to put it mildly. If you want people in this case whose politics are not well known, it ought to be possible for the Indian Government to select a number of people of that sort who will be, so to speak, above the political battle.
But the important point is that, the railways being mostly State railways at this moment, the Indian Government should have the right to nominate and to determine who shall be the appropriate people appointed to this authority. If I may say so, the addition which the right hon. Gentleman moved this afternoon, and is now accepted by the Committee, is an additional reason for my Amendment, for the Federal authority is still to be responsible, to a certain degree in the direction of the Amendment, for securing the safety of the railways. Therefore, it seems to us that, since they are responsible for the safety, since they are themselves now the owners of the railways, they ought to have some share—and a determining share—in selecting the appropriate people for exercising those functions. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I say this: I
dislike very much this repeated effort to keep out of the purview of the Indian Government important functions such as those that are to be exercised by the Federal Railway Authority. I know, of course, that the question of defence is involved, but I do not quite see why the federal authority should be any the less likely to discharge its duties adequately and properly than any other statutory body. In any case, my Amendment will not make them in the slightest degree, once they are appointed, more amenable to the Indian Government than they would be under the proposals of the Bill. All that we ask is that the Indian Government should have the right—I will not call it the privilege—of nominating these people, leaving it, of course, to the Governor-Genera/ in the end formally to appoint them. Therefore, the question is a simple one, namely, the representative character of this authority. Its job is to administer the railways in a way that seems best, most convenient and most profitable under the Indian Federation, and I cannot conceive that the Indian Government would be so foolish as to appoint people who would be, on personal grounds, unfitted for the discharge of such a power.
The second point is this. I suppose it will be suggested that you want people with special business acumen for this task. So far as my observations lead me to any conclusion in the matter, Indians are just as capable as Europeans of exercising directive power within the realm of business, and I do not at all see why it should be impossible to appoint seven people—Indian people or European people—appointed by the Indian Government who will do just as efficiently as seven people appointed in the way set down in the Clause. For that reason, I beg to move the Amendment.

4.8 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: There are two points of view taken about the railway board. One point of view, no doubt supported by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, is that the railways should be managed just like any other Government Department in India. The other point of view, represented by my hon. Friends over here, is that the railways should be managed as a business undertaking,
and should be kept as free as possible from political interference. Those two points of view are exemplified in the attitude from which the two sides of the Committee approach the question of the board of directors. Hon. Members opposite, holding the view that they do, not unnaturally demand that appointments to the board should be made on the recommendation of the Federal Ministry. We, on the other hand, say that although the Federal Ministry should be able to recommend certain directors, some of them ought to be appointed by the Governor-General, acting in his discretion. There was a prolonged inquiry into the whole of this question about 18 months ago. On that inquiry there were represented a number of distinguished members of the Indian Legislative Assembly, and one of two of the most prominent of the ministers of the Princes; and there was also represented upon it the point of view held, say, by the European Association in India, Mr. Joshi representing some part of the Labour Movement in India, and a number of experts from Great Britain. For instance, there was the General Manager of the Great Western Railway, Sir James Milne, and General Hammond, one of the greatest railway experts in Africa. After this very long inquiry, there emerged the proposal that we have put in the Bill, namely, that four of the seven members of the board should be appointed upon the advice of the Federal Ministry, and three, including the chairman, should be appointed in the discretion of the Governor-General.
I do not say that all the gentlemen, Indian and British, who took part in this investigation were unanimous in that recommendation. They were not. Some of them wished all the directors to be nominated on the advice of the Federal Ministry; others wished the whole board to be nominated in the discretion of the Governor-General. The Government and the Joint Select Committee adopted the view supported by the greatest measure of agreement, namely, the view expressed in the Bill, that four should be nominated on the advice of the Ministry, and three in the discretion of the Governor-General, the Governor-General having the right to appoint the chairman and the chief commissioner, the most important of the officials. I suggest to the Com-
mittee that this is probably the wisest and most practicable proposal for us to make, and it would be a mistake to accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones), if for no other reason than that it is really the outward and visible sign of the different conception of railway administration from that which was taken by the majority of the Joint Select Committee, and, I believe, by the great majority of this House.

4.13 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I think that I ought to point out to the Committee that those who take the view—which the Secretary of State has just explained—as I do myself that this board should be kept as free as possible from politics and be all appointed by the Governor-General in his own discretion, are rather in some difficulty over this Amendment. The Amendment, as moved, with the subsequent Amendments which you, Sir Dennis, may or may not call, would have the effect of placing in the power of the Governor-General in his discretion the appointment of the entire board. I should be very glad to vote for such a proposal. I am, however, more modest in my Amendment which is on the Paper, to leave out three-sevenths and insert four-sevenths to be nominated by the Governor-General. Personally, in the circumstances, I do not feel inclined to support the Amendment, as I otherwise should, but I will defer any further remarks on the question until we come to the next Amendment, and I am hoping that this one will be cleared out of the way. I do not ask that the whole of the board should be nominated by political people, or should be nominated with, a view to avoiding political appointments. I should be satisfied if we had a clear majority of non-political persons to manage the railways of India. I think that that is absolutely essential.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. WILMOT: This Amendment seems to me to be of far-reaching importance. It asks that the appointment of this important business board should be made by the Governor-General on the advice of his Ministers, and I suggest that the form in which the Amendment would have this done is the form which we are used to in similar circumstances in this country. The whole of this far-reaching
experiment in Indian government will succeed or fail according to how far it is possible to build up in India the same traditions of government as we have in this country. The whole purpose, I take it, of the Bill, and the conception of government which lies behind it, is to develop in India a system of responsible democratic government. If that be so, I think that nothing could be more fatal to the success of the experiment than that the Bill should be charged with distrust of the very machinery which the Government are setting up in India. Either the Government which will be in office when this Bill becomes law is to be composed of responsible, straightforward, independent persons, or the whole scheme is going to fail, and it seems to me to be very dangerous indeed to go on with this Measure, conferring these great powers upon and making these great innovations in India unless those who are responsible for these changes have faith in the success of the experiment and in the capability, uprightness, and disinterestedness of the people in India who will be called upon to administer it.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the question of the composition of this board had been the subject of a committee of inquiry and that that committee was divided as to the advice which it gave. Some felt that the whole of the members should be appointed by the Governor-General, and some felt that the whole of the members should be appointed in some other way or that there should be no suggestion of any political question forming part of the reasons why certain appointments were made. There is a case to be made for either of those two methods, but there is very little case to be made for a mixture of the two. To go so far as to say that the ministers in India may nominate a certain number of these members, and then to say that under no circumstances may they nominate a sufficient number to give them a majority on the board or to give them effective business control of the board is the worst possible suggestion which could have been made.
What is the reason for this reservation? It can only be that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Ministers of the Federal Government will be incapable of exercising the same disinterested motives in choosing the members as the Government of this country exercises when
it is appointing persons to sit on similar boards here. The British Broadcasting Corporation is an example. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not suggest for a moment that any political motives are operating when appointments are made to the board of the British Boardcasting Corporation, and the same is true, of course, of the other boards to which appointments are made on the advice of British Ministers. It can only be that the right hon. Gentleman feels that it is not safe to leave to Indian ministers the exercise of functions which he is satisfied British Ministers are capable of performing. If that be true—and it can be the only reason for this reservation—then he ought to see to it that none of these appointments is so made, but, if he takes that view, it seems to me that it cuts away the basis of the whole of this democratic machinery. If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman believes, as we believe, that the chances of the success of constitutional democratic government in India are sufficiently strong to warrant this experiment being made, then we ought to have the courage to vest that government with full responsibilities, especially in a matter of this kind.
If one desires to lay down sets of regulations which would involve the maximum of political interference, this is the way to do it. To reserve a certain number of seats and to give the rest for appointment on the advice of ministers is to invite that a section of the board shall represent interests or shades of opinion and that the Governor-General's representatives shall be persons who are impartial. Surely nothing could be more destructive of good business management than that a board should be thus divided as between the nominees of the Governor-General, who presumably will be business, non-political experts, and the nominees of the ministers, who, because of this reservation, will tend to become political nominees. I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to look at this question again and see whether, in the light of further consideration, it would not be wiser to place in the hands of the Indian ministers the responsibility of appointing to this board people of capacity, experience, and responsibility who can be trusted with the administration of this great function, without restricting them
in a manner which throws the gravest reflection upon their responsibility as appointees.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: The hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) was not, I think, a Member of this House when we were discussing the London Passenger Transport Bill, because he was saying that we ought, so far as India is concerned, to do the same as we have clone in this country. The last time in this country when he had a Bill before Parliament considering the appointment of people to run, among other things, a railway undertaking, we did not do that. The London Passenger Transport Board is appointed by a body which, frivolously, we used to call, when the Debates were on, the Commissioners in Lunacy, but which actually are known as the appointing trustees. Those appointing trustees consist, I think, as follows: One is the Chairman of the London County Council, one is some other popularly elected person, one is the President of the Law Society, one is President of the Bankers' Clearing House, and one is President of the Chartered Accountants. We in this House two and a-half years ago deliberately decided to take out of politics the control of that great railway undertaking, the London Passenger Transport Board, and having regard to the fact that we took that decision and, I think, took it with unanimity—I was one of those who did not like the whole conception of making London's passenger transport a monopoly and voted on a number of occasions against that Bill; nevertheless there was a general unanimity that that was the right way—and having regard to the fact that we did that for the United Kingdom, where we have a long history of responsible, representative government, we are not insulting the people of India very much if we suggest that they should be restricted to three-sevenths of the extent to which we have restricted our selves.

4.25 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: Everyone who has been in India knows that the real reason for making these appointments in this way is that these railways are mainly strategic railways. They were mainly made originally to enable us to get up to the frontiers to protect India against
raids across the frontiers. They were made to protect the people of India against any fighting which might occur and to bring British troops up to the front. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary on a board of this kind to be sure that you have not only politicians and people who represent the railways concerned, but men who are able to understand the necessity for rolling-stock, permanent way, and other matters connected with the railways being ready and in proper condition should they be required for strategical purposes. That is the real reason, in ray opinion, for controlling these appointments, and I think it is absolutely essential for the Government and the people of India that these railways should have a board on which the Governor-General is able to nominate people who will be able to take into consideration those military circumstances which are so necessary.

4.27p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Will the Princes be allowed to appoint, by any chance, any of these representatives on the board? I was wondering if possibly some compromise might not be arrived at in that way. It seems to me that that might be a way out of the difficulty, and that you might get one of the seven persons appointed in that way and thus be able to compromise between the two very different points of view that have been put before us

4.28 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: Undoubtedly, the Indian States will be fully represented upon this board. The Indian States will form part of the Federal Government, and it is inconceivable that the Federal Ministry will fail to advise the Governor-General to appoint a representative or representatives of the Indian States. Further than that, there are the appointments to be made by the Governor-General in his discretion. We certainly contemplate that the Governor-General will take into account the general balance of the board in any appointments of that kind. That is one of the answers to the hon. Member for East

Fulham (Mr. Wilmot). It is as impossible to generalise for India as for anywhere else in the world. The variety of conditions is so great that you want exceptional steps taken for dealing with them, and we have passed over and over again, not only at this point but at many other points in the Bill, and there is a general agreement among Indians, that the Governor-General should have in the last resort a discretion for redressing balances and seeing that one community does not, either in the matter of appointments or in any other way, dominate other communities. That, in addition to the reason given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Enfield (Lieut.-Colonel Applin), is one of the two main reasons why it is essential that the Governor-General should have in his discretion a certain number of these appointments.

Captain CAZALET: Am I right in assuming that the Governor-General, in appointing the President, may choose any of the seven members and not necessarily one of the three whom he has appointed in his discretion?

Sir S. HOARE: I think it is assumed that he will appoint one of the three. My hon. and gallant Friend will see that if he appointed one of the others it might be held to give him an unfair weightage, but I will consider my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: The phrase in the Clause is
the Governor-General shall in his discretion appoint a member of the Authority.
Once the seven members are gathered together they then constitute the authority, and the Governor-General may choose one of the seven and not necessarily one of the three.

Sir S. HOARE: I think that the hon. Member is right.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to 'three-sevenths,' in line 8, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 24.

Division No.130.]
AYES.
[4.34 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P.G.
Balley, Eric Alfred George
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C.M.S.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V.K.
Balniel, Lord
Beit, Sir Alfred L.


Atholl, Duchess of
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel


Blindell, James
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Petherick, M.


Bossom, A. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Bernstaple)


Boulton, W. W.
Harris, Sir Percy
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart
Hartington, Marquess of
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Hartiand, George A.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brass, Captain Sir William
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Rea, Walter Russell


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Romer, John R.


Bullock, Captain Malcoim
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rickards, George William


Burnett John George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Butler, Richard Austen
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Robinson, John Roland


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ross, Ronald D.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rothschild, James A. de


Castlereagh, Viscount
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Knox, Sir Alfred
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Clarke, Frank
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sandys, Duncan


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Colman, N. C. D.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Lewis, Oswald
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Cooke, Douglas
Liddall, Walter S.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Copeland, Ida
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K' dine, C.)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Cross, R. H.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Spens, William Patrick


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Davison, Sir William Henry
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stones, James


Denville, Alfred
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Storey, Samuel


Donner, P. W.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Duckworth, George A. V.
McKie, John Hamilton
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Duggan, Hubert John
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Dunglass, Lord
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Sutcliffe, Harold


Edmondson, Major Sir James
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n.S.)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Mallallew, Edward Lancelot
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Martin, Thomas B.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Turton, Robert Hugh


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Meller, Sir Richard James
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Moreing, Adrian C.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Gault, Lieut.-Cot. A. Hamilton
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, William Shephard
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gluckstein, Louis Halls
Munro, Patrick
Wise, Alfred R.


Goldle, Noel B.
Nunn, William
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Granville, Edgar
Palmer, Francis Noel



Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Patrick, Colin M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grimston, R. V.
Penny, Sir George
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Sir Walter Womersley.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Thorne, William James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cleary, J. J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
West, F. R.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McEntee, Valentine L.



Davies, Stephen Owen
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: I beg to move, in page 103, line 8, to leave out "three-sevenths," and to insert "four-sevenths."
This Clause, which relates to the composition of the railway authority, provides that not less than three-sevenths of the members shall be persons appointed by the Governor-General. We are anxious that there should be a clear majority of the authority on whose regard the Governor-General can rely. The Joint Select Committee in their recommendations said that the railway authority ought to be so composed and have such powers as to ensure that it shall be in a position to perform its functions upon business principles without being subjected to political interference. It is unnecessary to stress the great importance of the railways now arid in the future from the point of view of strategy, famine relief, and many other things, and those of us who are supporting the Amendment believe that it would be a far better thing if four-sevenths were substituted for three-sevenths and if the Governor-General were in a position to command a majority which would look at this matter not from the point of view of political prejudice, but from a strictly business point of view.

4.44p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I cannot help feeling that, if the Government were really to stand by their declared policy as expressed in paragraph 74 of the White Paper, they would support this Amendment. I was rather surprised to hear my right hon. Friend, in speaking on the last Amendment, describe the policy of wishing the railways to be run on business principles free from political interference as a policy advocated by those of us on these benches who are critical of the proposals.

Sir S HOARE indicated dissent.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am glad I misunderstood my right hon. Friend, because he could not have forgotten that this was the principle which he advocated. Therefore, if we agree on this side of the House in wishing the railways to be run free from political interference, the question only remains whether what the Government propose will really ensure that. Now I ask the House to face up to realities, however inconvenient it may
sometimes be to do so. The Joint Select Committee did have evidence of the fact that ministers might be subject to a great deal of pressure to make appointments not on merit, but on grounds of community or caste, or even personal relationship, and, indeed, my right hon. Friend admitted, in a speech on a previous Amendment, that appointments might have to be made on communal grounds. He seemed to think it natural that the Governor-General might be obliged to step in and make appointments in order to satisfy the aspirations of some community.
If we recall what has been said as to the effect of appointments made on such grounds on the efficiency of the various Departments already transferred, we must realise the possibility that appointments made by Ministers under pressure may not always be at all suitable, and in that case the efficiency of the railway administration and of the railways themselves must necessarily suffer. In a country the size of India railways must be almost of more importance to the welfare of the people than they are in this country. Not only are they important from the point of view of military strategy, but in times of famine the railways play an important part in getting personnel and food to the stricken areas. Therefore, we have to face the possibility, and, indeed, the probability, that some of these ministerial appointments, if made on the grounds indicated by my right hon. Friend himself, may not conduce to the efficiency of the railways. Further, members of the railway authority appointed by the minister may come to look to him for further promotion. Their appointment as members of the railway authority may not be the end of their hopes from the minister. That is the more likely as, I understand, the composition of the authority will allow members of the Legislative Assembly to be appointed to it. Nothing seems more natural than that members of the Legislative Assembly appointed by the minister to this authority may wish for further office at his hands, and therefore we cannot deny that such persons would be influenced, or might be influenced, by political considerations.
We have also to bear in mind the possibility of great political pressure being put on the staff of the railways,
such as was exercised during the Civil Disobedience Movement upon the police and subordinate officers of the revenue staff. They were subjected to pressure to give up their appointments under penalty of medical or food supplies being withheld, bridegrooms being refused for their daughters and brides for their sons. That pressure was very severe in several parts of India. The police withstood it magnificently, and so, I believe, did the revenue service, but could we count on a scattered staff such as the railway staff, not disciplined like the police force, being able to withstand pressure of that kind, and would a railway authority the majority of which consisted of men either not of the most suitable type or else looking to the minister for promotion be an authority which would effectually protect members of the staff from such interference? It seems to me we cannot be certain of really strict upholding of morale and independence of political pressure when we have an authority on which the majority are appointed by the minister; and the wording of the Clause seems clearly to indicate that the minister will appoint the majority. Seeing that the Clause does not seem to bear out the expressed intention of the Government that the authority should not be under political influence, I support the Amendment.

4.50 p.m.

Sir B.PETO: I would like to add a word to the able presentation of the case made by the two hon. Members who have preceded me. I wish to bring out a point which, it seemed to me, was partly made by an hon. Member opposite. There may be a great deal to be said for a railway authority appointed by ministers, and possibly of a political complexion, or a great deal to be said for an authority being appointed in an entirely different way by the Governor-General, but an authority appointed partly by the one and partly by the other is the worst possible type of authority. The point I wish to make is not quite as wide as that, but I really think a method by which the Governor-General appoints a minority of the Board is really the way to ensure a conflict without securing control. The Secretary of State has chosen the worst possible proportions in giving to the Governor-General the right to appoint three-sevenths, leaving the
Ministry to appoint four-sevenths. Whether the President, who can be selected from the whole authority, happens to be a member of the four-sevenths or the three-sevenths does not very much matter if our fears are justified and the members appointed by the Ministry are of a different character from the three-sevenths of the authority. I would respectfully call the attention of this Committee to the implication of Clause 177, Sub-section (4), and point out how vitally important it is that the authority should be a body which is likely to be in general agreement with the Governor-General's policy in discharging his responsibilities. That Sub-section (4) states:
The Governor-General may issue to the authority such directions as he may deem necessary as regards any matter which appears to him to involve any of his responsibilities.
It would be the worst possible thing if there were the probability of conflict between this authority and the Governor-General. He has to give absolute orders on any question impinging upon his Federal responsibilities, and in view of our desire to ensure the safety of India under this new form of government it is vital, wherever the special responsibilities of the Governor-General are involved, that he should be able to feel quite certain that the authority will carry out his orders in, it may be, very critical circumstances. If we have an authority with only three-sevenths of the members appointed by the Governor-General, and with a president with a casting vote, we shall constantly have that authority divided three and three. In a body of seven members a full quorum cannot always be ensured, and we may have two voting one way and two another and the President frequently called upon to assume the burden and responsibility of giving a casting vote. We want a body which we may feel fairly sure will, on important questions of administration, and particularly in circumstances to which I have specially referred, be of one opinion with what I may term the Government of India as distinct from these new Legislatures which are being set up. I beg my right hon. Friend seriously to consider this Amendment, and I hope that he will accept it and that we shall not be forced to divide, because in the appointment of this authority I think it
is right that four-sevenths of the members should be nominated by the Governor-General.

4.55 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: One of the things which has been revealed by this discussion is the evils that are attendant upon the State ownership of railways. If the Indian railways had been privately owned we should not be discussing this question. I would rather place my faith in the election of directors by the business community of India than by the Governor-General or, certainly, politicians.

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss the question of the State ownership of railways on this Amendment.

Sir W. WAYLAND: I will obey your instructions, Mr. Chairman. I support the Amendment, and I would add that I should have supported any Amendment which had proposed to place the election of this authority in the hands of the business community and to give the Governor-General the power to appoint the president. I certainly think there will be great danger in leaving the Clause as it is.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: There is an Amendment in my name which, I understand, is not to be called, but I can conveniently raise the point with which it deals upon this Amendment. Before I do that may I point out to the Noble Lady that she has, for once, made a slight slip, I think. She said that possibly members of this authority might be appointed from the Legislatures?

Duchess of ATHOLL: What I said was that I understood that members of the Legislatures could be appointed as members of the authority.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If the Noble Lady will look at the Eighth Schedule she will see it stated that any person who is or has been within the preceding 12 months a member of the Federal or any Provincial Legislature is debarred from appointment. I do not know to what extent we can refer to what appears in that Schedule in discussing this Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: The Schedule can be referred to, but it must not be discussed.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It seems to raise rather important issues, because, as far as I can see, there will be nobody left to be appointed other than what I call the nabobs, the people who have made a lot of money in business in India.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now discussing the Schedule.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The question is whether the members of this Authority are to look to the Governor-General as their chief, or to look to the ministers. That is the vital issue. As the Bill stands, three-sevenths will look to the Governor-General. The other four-sevenths will have been appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of his ministers, an advice which he cannot refuse. My Amendment was to propose that the four-sevenths should be appointed by the Governor-General in the exercise of his judgment, that is to say that he would receive the advice of his ministers, who would be able to suggest names, but that if he wished he could refuse their advice. I think that would have been a better solution, because while they would have been able to suggest suitable people, the members of the Authority, once they were appointed, would have realised that the Governor-General was their effective master. It is true that up to a point he remains their master, because he has the power of dismissal, and that is very important. A man does not consider only who has given him his job, but who can sack him. I admit that I have always paid very marked attention to anybody who could dismiss me. That is why we are all so tender towards our constituents. We are not so much grateful to them because they voted for us as fearful lest they should not vote for us again. Therefore, I admit the power of dismissal does somewhat strengthen the position. On the other hand, dismissal is a very extreme step to take in the case of persons of responsibility of this kind. They would not be dismissed unless for first-class incapacity or some very grievous offence, and normally the four persons who are appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the ministers will very clearly look on the ministers as their masters.
Here we are, undertaking this very great experiment—if it were not a great experiment there would not be any safeguards at all. The mere existence of a great many safeguards is a frank admission by all of us. Although those opposite are inclined to vote against the safeguards, they would not eliminate all of them if they were in charge of a Bill for the good government of India. As long as we contemplate having safeguards, the Governor-General if he has to exercise his special responsibilities wants to be certain that the means of transport will be at his disposal. I have never visited India, but I have tried, by reading and by discussion with a great many people of all sorts and conditions who are familiar with India, to acquire some knowledge of the subject. Everyone who has any sense of responsibility for the defence of India, and in particular the preservation of internal law and order, always emphasises the vital necessity of the Governor-General being able effectively to control the means of communication. If the majority of the board has been appointed on the advice of ministers the employés of the railway administration will look to these people as their real masters, and therefore their real loyalty—you cannot blame them—will be directed to the four members of the board who have been appointed by the ministers.
We have to contemplate that, if there is a breakdown and the Governor-General has to exercise his special responsibilities, he will exercise them against his ministers. That is the whole question—that it is a breach between him and his ministers. The ministers are doing things which he thinks are wrong; there is a grave threat, and he has to intervene and in effect supersede his ministers. Then he will have a situation that a majority of the railway board, will in effect, or may in effect, be supporters of the ministers in this great constitutional conflict, and the Viceroy may find himself deprived of what is vital if he has to give effect to his special responsibilities. All the study I have been able to make of this, all the grave and anxious words I have heard and read by people who are familiar with India—grave and anxious words not merely of people who have criticised all these proposals, but people who are sympathetic, generally speaking, to the proposals of this Bill—have emphasised that one of the essential
things is that the military authorities when necessary should have effective control over the railways.

The CHAIRMAN: May I ask the hon. Member just to explain his Amendment to me, because, if he looks back to Clause 9 of the Bill, Sub-section (1), of which I am quite sure he is well aware, he will find that the Governor-General, when he acts in his discretion, does not act in consultation with his ministers.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, Sir Dennis. He appoints three in his discretion, that is, without any reference to his ministers at all, but the board is to consist of seven and the other four he appoints—

The CHAIRMAN: Apparently, the hon. Member does not mean what he has down in his Amendment, because his Amendment refers to line 10. I think I am right about that.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If I may explain—the three are appointed by the Governor-General in his discretion, chat is to say, if he consults at all, he consults with his Secretary of State. With regard to the others, as the Clause stands, he has to take the advice of his ministers. As I wish to amend it, he would have to receive the advice of his ministers, but he could ignore it if he wished, and appoint them in one sense in his discretion after he had heard what his ministers had to say. There are four possibilities open to us. One is that the whole board should he appointed by the Viceroy in his discretion, without reference to anybody but the Secretary of State. The second is that the board should be appointed entirely on the advice of the ministers, the purely democratic way, so to speak. The third is the proposal in the Bill, part one thing and part the other, but we can argue as to the fraction. The other possibility is the one I have hinted at in my Amendment, namely, that some should be appointed by the Governor-General absolutely in his own discretion and the remainder by him but after he had consulted with his ministers. That seemed to me an alternative worth while considering, because there the minister would have a real opportunity of suggesting suitable people, but nevertheless, if the Governor-General thought that names were being put forward for improper reasons, he would be in a position
to be able to reject those recommendations. In any event, I hope the Committee will give very serious consideration to the Amendment immediately before us, and, if by any chance you, Sir Dennis, should think fit to give the Committee an opportunity of considering my alternative proposal, I hope that the Committee will give most earnest consideration to that, because we are now facing one of the principal and vital issues if the doctrine of safeguards is to have any significance whatsoever.

5.8 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I have only one or two words to add to the discussion put so effectively before the Committee. I make no apology for reminding the Committee once more that there is a country called Great Britain as well as the Indian Empire. It is extraordinary how in our great endeavour all the way through to consider the interests of the Indian people we are inclined to forget the fact that the whole of this great structure has been built up by British wealth, credit and industry. Therefore, I want to remind the Committee of the fact that it is imperative, from the point of view of this country, that we shall see that the railway administration of India shall not fall under political or communal or caste influence.

Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear.

Sir H. CROFT: The right hon. Gentleman, I am glad to learn by his sympathetic cheers, is on my side—it does not often happen I would remind him because I know he is always ready to secure British interests of the fact that in the statutory commission's Report they point out that in 1847 there were no railways at all in India, and, will he mark these words, there was no capital in India of any description. In consequence, the whole of the money for the building up of these railways had to be found by the joint stock banks in this country. That is laid down in the Statutory Commission's Report in that very interesting short survey. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is really a point that the Committee must consider. This great and vital system has been built up very largely by British investors. Although I have no money myself in Indian railways, I happen to be
trustee for many, and I am very anxious, although hon. Gentlemen tried to infer the opposite the other day, to do everything in our power to maintain the credit of the Indian Empire in days to come.
For that reason, if for no other, I ask the Secretary of State whether it would not be wise, at any rate for a period of years, to see that the Governor-General shall have the appointment of four-sevenths instead of three-sevenths. May I remind the Committee that this is a tremendous system we are now considering. The whole of this wonderful system of railways, 40,000 miles or more, was built up at a cost of something like £600,000,000 sterling, all very largely supplied by British investors in this country. Latterly, as the wealth of India has progressed, built up under the guidance of Great Britain, more and more Indians have invested in these railways. Therefore, from the point of view of the investing public who hold this immense amount of stock in Indian railways, I urge that it is wise that we should take every precaution to see that confidence is maintained.
You are bound to have a great clash of influences in the days to come. That has already been admitted in debate. You will have great influence from one direction or another, and it was pointed out by you, Sir Dennis, to my hon. Friend that the Governor-General has the power in case of great national emergency to take over the whole railway system. It must be obvious to everybody who has given any study to these kinds of movement that it would be very valuable—I will not put it higher—for the Governor-General to be able to take very early steps to prevent any such advances as are suggested by that other Clause as a possibility. For that reason, it is desirable that he should be able very strongly to influence this authority at the earliest possible moment. The point has not been raised up to now, and I hope the Committee will in voting on this question—although I hope the Secretary of State will excuse us the necessity of voting by meeting our point—realise that we, as members of this great Imperial Parliament, have a duty to that vast number of British people whose interests are so locked up in the great railway managements in India, and to those Indians who have themselves in-
vested in them and desire their investments to be free from any kind of political influence.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. RAIKES: I hope the Secretary of State will give us his views on the effect he considers the present composition of the board will have on the subordinate staff. That is a matter of very great importance.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it arises on this Amendment.

Mr. RAIKES: In all humility, I submit that it does arise in so far as we are considering the proportion of members to be appointed by the Governor-General in his discretion on the one hand, and by the ministers of the Federation; and the very fact that that means that the composition of the railway board must have either a useful or bad effect on the moral of the staff who are employed under the board. I submit that one of the chief matters with which this Amendment deals is to consider whether a larger proportion of members of the board appointed by the Governor-General in his discretion would have the effect of greater efficiency, and greater efficiency means more loyal staff work on behalf of the staff who are working under the board, or whether it would not. The trouble, as I see it, in the present figures is that you have a bare minority appointed to the board by the Governor-General in his own discretion. The fact that it is a bare minority will arouse the determination in the hearts of the ministers themselves to make sure that the other four-sevenths are men who are likely to stand by them as against the Governor-General in the event of there being any real trouble breaking out. If, on the other hand, the majority was actually in the hands of the Governor-General, at most it would be a bare minority, however good party men, appointed by the ministers, and there would not be the same determination to make sure of getting every single vote in case of a breakdown taking place.
That brings me to the other point in regard to the subordinate staff. It is possible for the railway board to act, on occasions, completely outside the views of the Legislature. If there is a divided board, a considerable number of members, in time of emergency, will oppose
the Governor-General, and that is bound to have an extremely bad effect upon the discipline of those who are working the railways. It has been said in the course of the Debate that the mobility of the Army depends upon the efficiency and loyalty of the railway service. In 1919, when trouble broke out, the railways were particularly apt to be attacked, and in many instances there was not very great loyalty on the part of the railway staffs. It is absolutely vital that if the railways in India are to be loyal in times of future emergency, the railway board should be of such a character that they can hold the staffs together firmly in the interests of discipline. Difficulties may still arise. After 1919, a great many men had to be sacked from the railways in the Punjab and elsewhere. We do not want a repetition of that. We want a board which has the confidence of its workers. I submit that you can only have that condition of things if the Governor-General appoints the majority at his discretion, and has not to fight with a bare minority against a political majority.

5.18 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I agree as to the great importance of the railway system in India. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir A. Croft) said, that system was mainly built up with British capital. It is one of the three great railway systems in the world, and from every point of view, that of British and Indian investors, of the defence of India, and of the economic future of India, it is essential that we should set up the most efficient and independent railway board that it is in our power to initiate. I was under the impression that we were setting up a very effective railway board for all those purposes. These recommendations are the result of a long period of most expert investigation in which, as I said just now, railway experts from British, Indian and Empire railways took part, and, in the view of those experts, the proposals that we are making are safe from the point of view that we all have in mind. If the percentage appointed by the Governor-General in his discretion were four-sevenths instead of three-sevenths, no great change would come over the future of the administration. It is assumed by hon. Members that within
the railway board, as they assume also in the Federal Government, there will be the most extreme form of dyarchy. The Governor-General and his representatives on the one hand, and the representatives appointed on the advice of the Federal Minister on the other, are always to be walking into opposite lobbies.
I do not think that that will be so. I do not think that the man who has been appointed at the discretion of the Governor-General will behave differently on the railway board from the man appointed on the advice of a Federal minister. In each case he will have security of tenure and will be bound down by a number of provisions in this part of the Bill, which sets out the way in which railways are to be managed. Over and above that safety, there is this really important feature in the problem which so far every hon. Member who has spoken has ignored. There is to be a Chief Commissioner of railways who is to be the executive officer of the Federal railways. That man will hold much the most important position in the railway administration. He will be the general manager of the Indian Federal railway system. This key man of the railway administration is to be appointed by the Governor-General in his discretion. That fact seems to dispose of many of the suspicions voiced in the course of the Debate, that the railway system will so run down that when the Governor-General has to intervene, acting in the field of his special responsibilities on Indian defence, he may find the problem much more difficult than it would have been if the Federal Railway Board had not been started. There will be a chief commissioner of railways as the executive officer of the railways, appointed in the Governor-General's discretion, watching the situation from day to day.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Surely the Governor-General does not appoint him but only confirms the appointment made by the railway authority.

Sir S. HOARE: No. I was not drawing the constitutional distinction between discretion and individual judgment. For our purposes this afternoon, there is no difference between the two. It is just a question of who takes the initiative; the
ultimate appointment rests with the Governor-General.

Mr. WILLIAMS: He cannot appoint anybody against the wishes of the authority; he must take from the list of those whom the authority submit.

Sir S. HOARE: That is not so.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The initiative rests with the Governor-General, but do we understand that the Governor-General can take any man he desires and not only from among those submitted by the authority?

Sir S. HOARE: The Governor-General can select any man he desires even though the name has not been proposed to him by the railway authority.

Duchess of ATHOLL: May I remind the Secretary of State of the wording of the Eighth Schedule which is that the person
shall be appointed by the authority subject to confirmation of the Governor-General exercising his individual judgment.
Surely that means that the Governor-General can merely confirm a name.

Sir S. HOARE: He can reject the name.

Mr. WILLIAMS: No.

Sir S. HOARE: My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) thinks that he is infallible in these matters. Perhaps I may be thinking that I am also infallible. Perhaps neither of us is.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Read paragraph 10 of the Eighth Schedule:
At the head of the executive staff of the authority there shall be a chief railway commissioner, being a person with experience in railway administration, who shall be appointed by the authority, subject to confirmation by the Governor-General, exercising his individual judgment.

Sir S. HOARE: Perhaps my hon. Friend will believe me when I say that the Governor-General need not approve of the proposal made by the Railway Authority. Anyhow, there is the fact. A Chief Commissioner and executive officer is appointed in this way and not on the advice of the Federal Government. That in itself seems a most effective safeguard against the kind of danger suggested during the Debate. As to the
question about the staff raised by the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes), perhaps he will raise that point when we come to the appropriate Chapter. Let me assure him that the broad policy will be laid down and will only be alterable after the Governor-General has approved.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: In regard to the chief railway commissioner, is he not entirely in the ordering of the board; can he go against their orders?

Sir S. HOARE: Certainly. Suppose that the Governor-General thought that his special responsibility for the defence of India were being compromised by the action of the board. The Governor-General could give his directions to the railway board and insist upon the directions being given to the chief commissioner that action should be taken to prevent his responsibility being compromised.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: The right hon. Gentleman made the point that it was a great safeguard to have this chief railway commissioner, but from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said it is the Governor-General who will give his orders to the board and to the commissioner. The mere fact that the commissioner is appointed in the way he has described is no safeguard in itself.

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. and gallant Member must take up that point with other hon. Members, because he seems to be making a point against their contention that it was no safeguard that the Governor-General should make the appointment against the advice of the authority. It seems to be a considerable safeguard that the commissioner should be appointed in that manner.
Let me come back to the one issue before the Committee, which is should three-sevenths or four-sevenths of the railway board be appointed on the advice of the Ministry or should it not? My own very strong view is that the position has been made fully safe by the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee and of the experts. In view of the fact that, first of all, the Governor-General can give whatever directions he thinks fit to the railway board in the interests of his special responsibility or in connection with his reserved powers; secondly, that he appoints three-sevenths of the board in his discretion including
the chairman and, thirdly, that in his individual judgment he appoints a chief commissioner, I say that the position is absolutely safe, and that there is no reason to alter the provisions of the Bill.

5.27 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: We quite understand that the chief commissioner would act under the instructions of the Governor-General if desired, in the interest of defence, but surely for anything except the special responsibilities of the Governor-General he would be under the orders of the authority. I thought I heard my right hon. Friend say that the members of the authority would have security of tenure. Paragraph (3) of the Eighth Schedule says:
Subject as aforesaid, a member of the authority shall be appointed for five years and shall at the expiration of his original term of office be eligible for re-appointment for a further term not exceeding five years.
That hardly seems to be security of tenure.

Sir S. HOARE: I was asked whether 10 years was security of tenure for the minister himself.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS rose—

Duchess of ATHOLL: Can I have an answer to my question?

Sir S. HOARE: I thought that the Noble Lady was merely making a statement which was not in the form of a question.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I will repeat the question. We quite understand that the Governor-General has the right to give orders to the chief commissioner, but is it not the case that the commissioner, in anything other than the Governor-General's special responsibilities, would have to act under the orders of the railway authority?

Sir S. HOARE: Certainly. It is none the less a safeguard.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The Secretary of State implied that the chief railway commissioner was to be appointed by the Governor-General. It is perfectly clear from paragraph 10 of the Eighth Schedule that the Governor-General cannot appoint, in the sense of initiating the appointment. There is no provision of
any kind for what the Secretary of State has said. Not only that, but the Governor-General cannot dismiss the chief railway commissioner. Paragraph 12 says:
The chief railway commissioner shall not be removed from office except by the Authority,
and, although the Governor-General has to approve, again the initiative in regard to dismissal lies with the Authority. In these circumstances the Governor-General neither appoints nor dismisses, and to suggest that the fact that the chief railway commissioner is in existence solves all our problems is, I think, something of a misunderstanding—I am certain it is not intentional—on the part of the Secretary of State.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. WISE: I think the right hon. Gentleman has misled the Committee to some considerable degree in his reply to the points put forward by various hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the Amendment. First of all, he said that this chief commissioner is appointed, I think I am right in saying, by the Governor-General. That is definitely not the case. That, quite clearly, is not in the Secretary of State's own Bill, and no denial that he offers at the moment will alter the phraseology of the Bill. Then the chief commissioner's appointment can only be confirmed by the Governor-General. It is definitely laid down, in the Schedule which governs this matter, that the appointment is to be made by the board, and that that appointment is to be confirmed by the Governor-General. There is no indication anywhere in the Bill that the Governor-General has any right whatever to put forward a name.

Sir S.HOARE: My hon. Friend is really splitting hairs. "Individual judgment" means that the initiative either comes from the Minister or the Railway Board, but if no initiative comes that does not mean that no appointment is made. If the names suggested to the Governor-General are names of which he does not approve, he can then act and put in a name of his own.

Mr. WISE: The Secretary of State is calling a three-inch hawser a hair. I do not want to enter into any controversy but paragraph 10 of the Eighth Schedule
definitely says that the chief railway commissioner
shall be appointed by the Authority, subject to confirmation by the Governor-General exercising his individual judgment.
If the English language means anything, his individual judgment would be applied to the confirmation. It can mean nothing else. If the right hon. Gentleman really does mean that the Governor-General is to have the power of suggesting names. I hope he will give the assurance now that he will alter this paragraph of the Schedule at the proper time, and will reassure us by saying that, in the event of the Board not appointing a chief com missioner the Governor-General will have the right arbitrarily to appoint some nominee of his own. At the moment that is not in the Bill, and, until we have an assurance that it is in the Bill, we must persist in demanding that the composition of this Railway Board shall be such as will give us some confidence.
The railways in India are, after all, almost the lifeblood of the entire Dominion; and, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman recognises that there is considerable danger in maladministration of the Indian railways. He recognises that there is a definite chance that a railway hoard appointed purely by Ministers elected by democratic election might betray the purpose for which they are appointed. If he did not recognise that danger, he would not have suggested that three-sevenths of them—an intelligent minority, at least—should be appointed by someone else. But either you want a majority of nominated appointments to this board or, alternatively, you do not want any. If you are prepared sufficiently to trust your Ministers—and quite clearly the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to trust the elected Ministers in this respect—if you are prepared to trust them, you need no reservation as to appointment by the Governor-General. But if you do have any, quite clearly you need a majority. It is preposterous for the right hon. Gentleman to get up as he does in this House and, without replying to the arguments, simply say, "Experts all over the country have told us that this is all right." The House of Commons does not want the Bill justified by experts, but by the Minister in charge of it, and that is just what we are not getting.
There is this further point. The Governor-General is going to have the right now to nominate three out of seven members of this board. It is absolutely certain that those three nominated members are going to be in conflict sooner or later with the other four. [HON. MEMBERS "Why?"] Hon. Members ask "Why?" All countries have some corruption in them, and Asiatic countries much more than others. Railways are a magnificent source of corruption, as many countries know. The railways of the United States have even gone to the extent of keeping a complete staff of very expensive private detectives to check the graft on their own lines, and the graft on the Indian lines will not be less, but more, than in the United States. The opportunities are greater; the people to be fleeced are more ignorant; and if this board is influenced, as it will be influenced under this system, entirely by the whim of elected ministers, and elected ministers in whom most of the House has very little confidence, there is going to he a greater exploitation of the public than there has ever been before.
I was hoping that possibly this afternoon, on this Amendment, I should hear some other supporters of the Bill than the right hon. Gentleman. He has lived with this Bill for three years, and has eventually, I think, deluded himself into believing in it. I was hoping that some other supporters of the Bill might rise to defend it. But supporters of the Government are as notorious on this Clause as on any other, not only by their absence, but by their silence. They find it better to say nothing. I hope, however, that it is not too late even now for the right hon. Gentleman to repent. He has hitherto made no concession on the Bill, not even the most reasonable one, and in this particular case, where all the safeguards of which he is so proud—the Army, the Revenue, and everything else that he has reserved to the Governor-General—practically depend on efficient control of the railway system, I hope he will realise that he is invalidating his own safeguards by handing over the whole of this magnificent system to a board the majority of which will be exposed to all the evils from which the safeguards are supposed to defend us. It is handing over also a railway staff which it is true in some cases has not been as good as
it might have been, but the members of which have on the whole been loyal servants of the Government, and have shown stout-hearted courage in many most difficult situations. We all know of the famous occasion on which a telegraph message came through from the babu in charge of a station:
Party of dacoits approaching station, estimated 40 in number. Please send one rifle and 40 cartridges.
That staff is going to be handed over, and if they fail to support the will of this elected Government, which may be in conflict with the Governor-General, they will in fact be victimised.
The Amendment is a very simple one. It asks that the railways should be taken out of politics and given into the charge of official heads. In India, taking the railways out of politics is a very different matter from what my hon. Friends opposite are suggesting. It is a very different matter from taking unemployment relief out of politics in this country. England is a democratic country; India is not, and, if this Bill goes through, it will never have a chance of being so. I hope my hon. Friends opposite will remember that what they are supporting will mean the end of democracy for India. I ask the Government to be good enough to consider this point again. I realise that it would not be possible, consistent with the dignity of government, for them to give way to pressure at the moment, but they might be able to consider the matter before the Report stage and see where their definite refusal to recognise facts is likely to lead them. They have based their case to-day even on denying Clauses of their own, and I hope that, before it is too late, they may repent of their action and let us have what we want in this small Amendment.

5.43 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: The Debate on this question of the appointment of the chief railway commissioner is very similar to the Debate which took place with regard to the power of the Federal Legislature to alter the constitution. We were then told that it was perfectly clear from the words of the Bill that the Federal Legislature had no such power; but, after the Committee had discussed the matter for a very considerable time, the Attorney-
General agreed to put in words to make the matter clearer, although it was already clear to the Government. I suggest to the Government that, if this matter is clear to them, it is not clear to a great many of their weaker brethren in the House—assuming us to be weaker; and therefore I would suggest that, without any admission that the Clauses are not sufficient, it would be perfectly simple to add at the end of paragraph 10 of the Eighth Schedule, which says that the chief railway commissioner shall be appointed by the Authority subject to the confirmation of the Governor-General exercising his individual judgment, some such words as these:
but, in default of an approved nomination, he may himself make the appointment.
I ventured to say to the Attorney-General the other day that, even in the courts of law in this country, there is very often great difference of opinion among distinguished judges as to the precise meaning of a Statute—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now discussing the Eighth Schedule, and suggesting Amendments to it. That is a long way off.

Sir W. DAVISON: I am asking in this connection for some assurance from the Government, and I was only suggesting a form of words to make it clear that, in default of a satisfactory nomination, the Governor-General will have the power to make the appointment.

5.45. p.m.

Mr. C WILLIAMS: It has been pointed out by my hon. Friend opposite that no supporter of the Government has spoken so far on this particular Amendment except the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. I do not wish in any way to seem to be discourteous to my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) or to my Noble Friend the Member for Kinross and Western Perth (Duchess of Atholl), but possibly if they did not have quite so many twin speeches some of us might make a few remarks from time to time. As a supporter of the Government, I feel that the Government have really got the very worst of both worlds. I can understand
the Government saying that our main object in supporting this railway committee should be to avoid friction. We do not want to have a committee in which we are liable to have friction. Most of us who support the Government hope that all their proposals will go well; we do not look upon the safeguards as the main part of the Bill, but as unfortunate things which we hope will never have to be used. At all events, I hope that they will be used as little as possible because we want to see this thing succeed.
If you are to set up a committee of seven, what can be more useless than, first of all, having a minority nominated by the Governor-General? Directly any friction appears, as was pointed out by every speaker who spoke before the right hon. Gentleman, you will have the chairman of the committee in the unfortunate position of having the majority of the members against him. Could anything be more unfortunate than to set up a committee on that basis? It would be much better to do one of two things, namely, to give the Governor-General two representatives on the committee to keep him in touch with the work and enable him, in case of emergency, to have a permanent line of thought through those members, or else to say to the Indian people, "You had better have five, and we will appoint only two." You must either have a clear majority on the committee, or have the balance absolutely the other way, with a sufficient number to hold a watching brief. I cannot understand why it should be desired to put on three members, and thus so nearly balance the committee that the least thing may turn it one way or the other. If my right hon. Friend could accept four members, it would, at any rate, please a large number of members in this Committee who cannot see why he should stick so closely to the three-sevenths. He has not been able to make out any particular merit in the scheme, and he seemed to get rather confused as to the precise position in regard to the appointment of the chief railway officer. I understand that these people will make an appointment, and it will have to be confirmed. I wish the Government, in laying down the number of the commitee, would do it in such a way that they would really provide for the balance to be in favour of one side or the other.
We want to see the strongest safeguards in the Bill, but not narrowly balanced committees of this sort.

5.50 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: It must be clear now as a result of the discussion that, in fact, the commissioners are not appointed by the Governor-General. I think it must also be clear that the chief commissioner has to obey the decisions of the authority, and therefore I think that the whole question should have deserved reconsideration. The Secretary of State took us to task for suggesting that there might always be the difficulty between the Governor-General and the elected representatives. I do not think that any of us suggested that there would always be difficulties. We are legislating perhaps for all time. [An HON. MEMBER: "All time?"] We have to contemplate possibilities for a very long time. I see the point now. My hon. Friend means that the whole Act will break down if it ever comes into operation, and I think that he is quite right. All along, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends in India and in the Round Table Conferences and in the Select Committee have been too hopeful in this connection. He is hopeful that Congress in its present state of mind will not control the political machine. When before the Select Committee on another great issue the Lancashire representatives were asked if they would be satisfied if they were assured that Congress would not control the political machine, they replied that ire those circumstances they would say, "Yes". But within three months the electorate had been swept by Congress. It is the same with regard to this Clause. We have to contemplate the possibility of extremists controlling India, and, if so, the extremists will control the four members of this committee, and for that reason I regret that

the Secretary of State has not been able to meet my hon. Friends.

5.52 p.m

Sir S. HOARE: I do not want to reopen any of the controversy to which we have listened at such length this afternoon. All I say is that I do not accept either of the two assumptions made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). I take the view that the Governor-General, exercising his individual judgment, has the last word in the appointment of the Chief Commissioner. Secondly, I take the view—and nobody can controvert this claim—that the Chief Commissioner, and indeed the whole Federal Railway Board, have to carry out the instructions of the Governor-General as being the only valid instructions when the Governor-General is acting either in his own capacity or with his Federal responsibility.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, if none of the names submitted by the authority for the confirmation of the Governor-General are, in the opinion of the Governor-General, suitable, the Governor-General is entitled to nominate a person whose name has never been considered by the authority let alone approved by it?

Mr. WISE: If the right hon. Gentleman maintains his position that the Governor-General has this discretion, will he construe for us paragraph (10) of the Eighth Schedule, and tell us what it means?

The CHAIRMAN: We must keep within the scope of the Amendment.

Question put, "That 'three-sevenths' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 40.

Division No.131.]
AYES.
[5.55 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Blindell, James
Cadogan, Hon. Edward


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Bossom, A. C.
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Boulton, W. W.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brass, Captain Sir William
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)


Banfield, John William
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric


Batey, Joseph
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Clarry, Reginald George


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Clayton, Sir Christopher


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Cleary, J. J.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Butler, Richard Austen
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.


Conant, R. J. E.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cooke, Douglas
Iveagh, Countess of
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cooper, A. Duff
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Copeland, Ida
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
John, William
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Cross, R. H.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Daggar, George
Ker, J. Campbell
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Robinson, John Roland


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Denville, Alfred
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Dickle, John P.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Duggan, Hubert John
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Dunglass, Lord
Lawson, John James
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Eales, John Frederick
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Edmondson, Major Sir James
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Leonard, William
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lewis, Oswald
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Elmley, Viscount
Liddall, Walter S.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe
Sandys, Duncan


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Selley, Harry R.


Fermoy, Lord
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Logan, David Gilbert
Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Fox, Sir Gifford
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Lunn, William
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Ganzonl, Sir John
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Soper, Richard


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
McEntee, Valentine L.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.



McKie, John Hamilton
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Spens, William Patrick


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stones, James


Goldie, Noel B.
Mainwaring, William Henry
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Granville, Edgar
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Summersby, Charles H.


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Grigg, Sir Edward
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Grimston, R. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thorne, William James


Groves, Thomas E.
Meller, Sir Richard James
Tinker, John Joseph


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mills. Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Hamilton. Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hanbury, Cecil
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moreing, Adrian C.
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Harris, Sir Percy
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Morrison. William Shephard
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Munro, Patrick
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
O'Connor, Terence James
West, F. R.


Howard, Tom Forrest
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hn. William G. A.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Paling, Wilfred
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Palmer, Francis Noel



Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Patrick, Colin M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sir George Penny and Sir Walter


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Petherick, M
Womersley.


NOES.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Atholl, Duchess of
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Remer, John R.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Everard, W. Lindsay
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Hartington, Marquess of
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hepworth, Joseph
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Burnett, John George
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Knox, Sir Alfred
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Craddock Sir Reginald Henry
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)



Donner, P. W.
Nunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—




Mr. Raikes and Mr. Wise.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I beg to move, in page 103, line 19, to leave out from "tax," to the end of the Clause.
The Secretary of State, in dealing with the previous Amendment, has accused us of wanting to democratise the proposals in this Clause, and, on the other hand, he has accused hon. Members below the Gangway opposite of wanting to make these proposals more autocratic. He has taken up the position that the point of view that he holds between those opposites is by far the best. The Amendment that I am, moving is designed to make the Federal Railway Authority a much more flexible body than it will be if the proviso which I seek to leave out remains in the Bill. There are such things as Governors-General being people who may have very static minds—persons not likely to adapt themselves to changing conditions. The Secretary of State has told us that India is unique in many respects and, because it is unique, because it is a land of such contrasts, he justifies many of the proposals which are embodied in the Bill.
I think the proposals in regard to the Federal Railway Authority are such as to make that authority a very rigid body. Our wish in seeking to remove the proviso and give the Federal Legislature more control in regard to the members of the railway authority is that we want to make it more flexible. We want to make it a body which will adapt itself more readily to the changing conditions which must ensue in India in the future. We do not think that the Federal Legislature should be treated in the drastic manner suggested in the proviso. We want to give it more liberty than the Secretary of State proposes, and I hope the Committee will give support to our suggestion that the proviso be removed. I have been very interested in listening to the preceding discussion, because I heard the opponents of the proposals in this Clause seeking to make the Clause more autocratic, and in doing so they advanced many strange arguments. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H Croft) could not talk about anything except British capital invested in Indian railways. An hon. Member opposite was mainly concerned about the strategic function of the Indian railway. Do hon. Members who made those criticisms ever think that the railways generally are
used for the normal civilised purposes of carrying goods and passengers from place to place? Is not that their normal function, and must it not in the development of India in the future be more and more the function of railways in India? Therefore, any body which is to be set up, such as the Federal Railway Authority, should be a body flexible in its nature and readily able to adapt itself to changing conditions. We object to the placing of all these powers in the hands of the Governor-General, who may be a most reactionary individual, as many Governors-General are. They are not progressive people. They do not adapt themselves to changing circumstances. Therefore, in moving the Amendment I hope that the Committee will agree to the removal of the proviso from the Clause.

6.9 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I must not get into controversy with the hon. Member about Governors-General. I can only say, in answer to his rather comprehensive strictures upon Governors-General, that some of the most progressive administrators in India for more than a century have been Governors-General. Let me come to the Amendment. The Committee will see that we have put into the body of the Bill the basic conditions respecting the railway board, the chief provision being that the railway board shall be managed on business lines. Those basic conditions are a part of the Act, and can only be altered by an amending Act of Parliament. We then have the Eighth Schedule, and we include in it a number of conditions which are very important, but which are not so basic as the various Clauses in Part XVIII of the Bill. In this secondary category we allow the Indian Federal Legislature to introduce amending legislation, providing that that legislation receives the Governor-General's previous assent. In view of the very grave issues at stake, and in view particularly of the fact that as long as defence is a reserved department, the Governor-General has a very direct and very important interest in the management of the railways, it is essential that even for this secondary category of conditions there should be no change without the Governor-General's previous assent. I fear, therefore, that I cannot accept the Amendment. I regard
the provisions as they are now as quite essential to the independent and effective working of the board in future.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has made out a case for the proviso. He is overworking this device of previous assent. There are already wide powers, which we have already passed, where if it is necessary for the discharge of a special responsibility, the Governor-General can prevent the discussion of subjects, the introduction of Bills or the introduction of amendments. At every point we seem to he hedging about the actual passing of legislation, the introduction of legislation, the introduction of amending legislation and discussion in any tangible form of provisions, with the condition that there must be the Governor-General's previous assent. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman merely saying in a vague way that the railways are vital to strategy, and so forth. We all know that. The point is, what is the evil that is aimed at in this proviso? Why is it wrong that these matters should be discussed? There is power for the Governor-General to reject legislation. If some one—it may be a Labour representative or a business man—has some matter to bring up and thinks that certain things require alteration, and he wants to amend or it may be to supplement some-

thing, why on earth should it be necessary to have the Governor-General's prior assent? If the right hon. Gentleman will think a moment, he will realise that the more we make such a requisition a matter of habit, the less important it becomes. The whole idea of the provisions for requiring the Governor-General's prior assent is to separate certain matters and to say: "These matters are to some extent taken away from the general rights of members because they are so important that there must be the Governor-General's prior assent in regard to them." When you apply that almost to everything, and make it a mere matter of regulation of the railway board, you actually reduce the Governor-General's prior assent to a nullity. If you do that, it will come down eventually to being that sort of consent that we see given here on the introduction of Bills, when a Minister merely gets up and nods. I suggest that universalising or generalising the requirement of the Governor-General's prior assent has the effect of nullifying it altogether. There is no reason why prior assent should be necessary merely to introduce some provision altering the Schedule.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divide: Ayes, 257; Noes, 31.

Division No. 132.]
AYES.
[6.15p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Burghley, Lord
Davison, Sir William Henry


Albery, Irving James
Burnett, John George
Denville, Alfred


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Butler, Richard Austen
Dickle, John P.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Duckworth, George A. V.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Eales, John Frederick


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Castlereagh, Viscount
Edmondson, Major Sir James


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Atholl, Duchess of
Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Bailey, Erie Alfred George
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Eimley, Viscount


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh. S.)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Clarke. Frank
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Clarry, Reginald George
Everard, W. Lindsay


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Fermoy, Lord


Blindell, James
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst


Boulton, W. W.
Conant, R. J. E.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Cooke, Douglas
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cooper, A. Duff
Fox, Sir Gifford


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Copeland, Ida
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian


Brass, Captain Sir William
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cross, R. H. 
Ganzoni. Sir John


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Brown. Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Goff, Sir Park
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Goldie, Noel B.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Granville, Edgar
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Invernoss)
Sandys, Duncan


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Selley, Harry R.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
McKie, John Hamilton
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Grigg, Sir Edward
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Grimston, R. V.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hamilton. Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D


Hanbury, Cecil
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Harris, Sir Percy
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Hartington, Marquees of
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Soper, Richard


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Meller, Sir Richard James
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Hepworth, Joseph
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Spens, William Patrick


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Moison, A. Hugh Elsdale
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Howard, Tom Forrest
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Stones, James


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Morrison, William Shephard
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Munro, Patrick
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Iveagh, Countess of
Palmer, Francis Noel
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Patrick, Colin M.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Pearson, William G.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Jamieson, Douglas
Penny, Sir George
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Percy, Lord Eustace
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Petherick, M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Ker, J. Campbell
Peto, Sir Basil E.(Devon, B'nstaple)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Wayland, Sir William A.


Lewis, Oswald
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Liddall, Walter S.
Remer, John R.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Robinson, John Roland
Wise, Alfred R.


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Ropner, Colonel L.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)



Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Loder, Captain J. de. Vere
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Sir Walter Womersley and Dr. Morris-Jones.


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)



NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
John, William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
West, F. R.


Davies, Stephen Owen
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Paling.


Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.27 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: May I say one word in regard to the point of the appointment of the chief commissioner of railways? The Secretary of State made
certain statements on the matter which were questioned. I have come to the conclusion that the Secretary of State was perfectly right, but it took me three-quarters of an hour to find out why he was right. The answer is that paragraph 10 of the Schedule, taken together will Sub-section (4) of Clause 177, does
have the effect which the Secretary of State indicated. The point I want to put is that it is obviously undesirable that an important point like this should be left so uncertain, and has to be worked out by a comparison of widely separated provisions of the Bill. I should like to ask the Government whether they will not, before we come to the Schedule, consider re-drafting the appropriate provisions in the Schedule?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) for his support. Obviously it would be absurd to say that a thing which took him three-quarters of an hour to discover was abundantly plain. We think that the position is clear, but if it is necessary we will take the requisite steps to consider whether words can be introduced into the Schedule to obtain the results desired by the Noble Lord.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am glad to hear what the Solicitor-General has said. I still do not agree with the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). I think the Noble Lord has misinterpreted the Bill. If he will refer to Clause 12 he will find that nothing which comes under what we contemplate in regard to the appointment of the chief commissioner is a special responsibility.

CLAUSE 177.—(Directions and principles to be observed by Railway Authority.)

6.30 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 103, line 33, at the end, to insert:
Subject to the provisions of this Sub-section it shall be the duty of the authority, so far as it may be reasonable, to ensure that plant, goods, and material required for the service of the railways shall have been produced within the British Empire and under conditions of labour which are fair, having regard to all the circumstances.
The opening words, "Subject to the provisions of this Sub-section" refer, of course, primarily to the words in Subsection (1) of the Clause, namely,
The Authority in discharging their functions under this Act shall act on business principles.
Quite clearly in asking that that shall be mandatory, that in general there shall be a discrimination in favour of Empire
goods, and, secondly, in respect of goods produced under what I might call the fair wages clause, I am still presuming, that the authority will act "on business principles." There is a point beyond which it would not be proper for them to push the preference. It is the practice in this country for the Government to buy goods of United Kingdom or Empire origin so far as it may reasonably be practicable, but I well remember that when my predecessor in the representation of South Croydon was Postmaster-General he deliberately placed an order for some foreign copper wire of a particular kind, because he had come to the conclusion that the practice in his Department was being improperly exploited and that prices were being forced up against him.
We have to recognise that if you apply a too rigid limitation on the powers, there is the possibility of that exploitation, and that is why I phrase my Amendment, "Subject to the provisions of this Subsection." Subject to those business principles it shall be their duty to ensure that plant, goods and material shall be of British and Empire origin. I think that the word "plant, goods and material" cover everything that a railway company would purchase. I did not insert the words "rolling stock," because I assumed that "plant" would cover that. It was in that sense that I drafted the words. If for any reason the words of the Amendment are incomplete, I shall be only too glad to add words so that the Amendment shall be made complete. In any event the intention is clear.
I want the railway board in India to do what Government Departments do in this country. I see no reason why, when we are setting up a new Constitution for India, we should not make it perfectly plain that we in this country and those in other parts of the Empire are entitled to some consideration. I do not believe that in the long run you gain respect from people by what I would call crawling. You get far more respect by standing up for your legitimate and proper rights, provided that you are not selfish in your attitude. There is nothing selfish in suggesting that the largest part of the British Empire should in its purchases, so far as this railway authority is concerned, definitely give a preference to the other parts of the Empire. We
in our tariff system in this country extended important preferences to India long before India gave us any preference whatever in return. The preference on tea, which I regret was temporarily terminated by a Government of which I was a junior member—I had no responsibility for that decision, not being a Member of the Cabinet—

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: You did not resign?

Mr. WILLIAMS: There was not much option in the matter, because a General Election took place about a fortnight afterwards, and with the assistance of the electors I was sacked, and the problem did not arise. We have in many directions sought to stimulate the trade of India by our preference. Other things being equal, it is the practice of the British Government to buy the products of India rather than products coming from any foreign country, as a matter of public policy. I think that of all Departments of State in India this railway board will probably be one of the largest purchasing authorities. The only comparable Indian purchasing body will be the military authorities, and so far as they are concerned the position is rather different, because that will not be a transferred subject. It should be definitely a matter of policy that the largest unit in the Empire should make its purchases, so far as reasonably practicable, in the Empire. That is subject to conditions which I hope will attract the interest and support of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite— that the goods in question have been produced "under conditions of labour which are fair, having regard to all the circumstances." That is to say that if the Empire goods were being produced under unfair conditions that would be a disqualification, and equally if it were the case that foreign goods which for some other reason were likely to be purchased were produced under conditions which were unfair, it would be mandatory that such goods should not be purchased.
I am not taking any narrow point of view in the interest of the capitalist class of any class. I take the broad view. There are obviously many reasons which could be adduced in support of the proposal. If we were engaged on the Second Reading of a Bill for this purpose one would be inclined to speak at much greater length, but on the Committee stage, when we have a rather
limited time-table, I do not want to trespass unduly on the time of the Committee.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. HANNON: I have not spoken in these debates before, but I venture with great respect to submit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that this is an Amendment to which he might give sympathetic consideration. As my hon. Friend has said, this country has for a long period of years conferred distinct advantages upon Indian commerce, and India in its economic development owes an immense debt to this country. It is, therefore, reasonable to ask the new Government set up under this projected Constitution to give prior consideration, so far as is reasonable and within the limits of the Amendment, in purchasing materials which are necessary for the maintenance of the railway system of India, to manufacturers in this country. I have the greatest confidence in the discretion and wisdom and statesmanship of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I am certain that in everything he has done in relation to this great Measure, from the point of view of the people of India and of this country, he has given the fullest consideration to the advantages of both sides. But this is an instance in which he might just consider how important it is to make the situation, from the point of view of the British manufacturer, a little more mandatory than that contemplated in the Bill. Industrially we are having a difficult time in this country, and it is of great importance to us to get every possible order for our workshops. We have had some sad experience in recent times of important railway orders going to foreign countries at the expense of British manufacturers and workmen. In locomotives and railway rolling stock and signalling apparatus, and in various other departments of supply, manufacturers here have been deprived of the opportunity of even tendering on certain occasions.

6.42.p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I approach this proposal with the same desire as My hon. Friend who has just spoken, namely, to do everything that is possible for British and Empire trade; and indeed, ever since I have been at the India Office, that has been one of my main objectives. But let the Committee analyse the situation a
little further. Let them ask themselves the question whether the passing of an Amendment of this kind is really likely to improve British trade with India. Let them first look at the history of this question. For many years past we have allowed the Government of India to place its contracts for railway material where it desires, and we have not interfered with the discretion of the Government of India in that respect. The Statutory Commission inquired into this among other economic questions. If hon. Members will refer to page 244 of the first volume of the Statutory Commission's Report they will find that the Commission, having dealt with the convention so far as tariffs are concerned, state this about contracts for railway material:
An understanding analagous to the fiscal convention has been arrived at in one other region. The Secretary of State has relinquished his control of policy in the matter of the purchase of Government stores for India, other than military stores. The Government in India, in agreement with the legislatures, are now free to buy stores in India, in this country, or abroad, as seems best to them, and the Secretary of State, though he is by statute responsible to Parliament, has undertaken not to intervene.
That has been the practice during the lifetime of many Governments for a continuous period since the Montagu-Chelmsford Report. So far for the history. Now let us look at what have been the results. I have had made out for me a table showing the way in which these orders have been given by the Government of India, acting without official intervention from His Majesty's Government in Whitehall. The result shows that to the extent of 75 per cent. the orders go to Great Britain. That is a very remarkable figure. As things are now, the Government of India, acting without official intervention from London, basing their decisions no doubt on the actual merits of the case, we are now receiving 75 per cent. of these orders as against the 25 per cent. that go elsewhere. I suggest to the Committee that in view of the long period during which we have followed that policy in India, and in view of the fact that we are obtaining already three-fourths of these valuable orders, it would be a mistake, in the interests of British trade, to attempt to go back upon that policy and to impose by statute a policy of preference
such as is recommended in the Amendment.
No one in this Committee wishes more than I do to see preferences developing between Britain and India, but I think that the worst possible way to achieve that result would be to attempt to do so by statutory enactments. The history of the British Empire goes to show that it is a mistake to attempt to impose what is, after all, a tariff policy from Whitehall upon any part of the Empire. Therefore, with great difference to what my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) has just said, I put it to the Committee that it would be a mistake to adopt an Amendment of this kind. I need not go into technical details as to the wording, but I believe that in actual practice it would be very difficult to apply a provision of that kind in an Act of Parliament. Apart from that consideration, it would, as I say, be a mistake to go back upon a policy that has been in existence ever since the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. We might save a contract or two in one direction, though I am doubtful even of that, but in the long run we should do much greater injury to British trade as a whole with India. For those reasons, I strongly advise the Committee not to attempt to impose a proposal of this kind upon India by statutory enactment.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The right hon. Gentleman, I think, has given the only reply to the Amendment which is possible. The proposal of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is one which in the end would serve no purpose. Either the members of the railway authority will wish to trade with this country in the first instance or they will not. If there should arise such a feeling of antagonism and bitterness and political division, that they will have no wish to trade with us or to get their goods, in the first instance, from this country, does the hon. Member think that his proposal will stop them from placing orders elsewhere? Does he think it possible that, even under the wording of his own Amendment, they would not be able to place their orders elsewhere and to claim that they were acting within business principles? If they desire to obtain their plant and materials from this country, that desire will be carried into effect but
they will not do it because they have to consult an Act of Parliament. If their own wishes are to be set on one side they will find means of circumventing even the wording which the hon. Member has put upon the Order Paper. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Harmon), in asking us to support the Amendment, used as an illustration what had been done, I think, by some railway companies in this country, in placing their orders elsewhere. That may have been wise or unwise on their part—I do not go into that question—but if that power and that right can be exercised by railway companies in this country—

Mr. HANNON: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I was referring to Indian railways placing contracts in foreign countries.

Mr. FOOT: I beg the hon. Member's pardon, I thought his reference was to the railway companies here. At any rate, it is admitted that a railway company in this country in ordering its plant, machinery or material is entitled to go to the whole world, under present conditions. They are under no obligation to buy from the Empire, although presumably they would seek to do so in the first instance. But the right to buy where they choose is one which I think no company in this country would surrender. If it were proposed that a legal enactment should be made here restraining the freedom of any great corporation or company in this country, it would be resented by the company concerned. On what ground then can we deny to the people of India a right that would be claimed by every big concern in this country 1 It is hoped, of course, that there will be a close trading relationship between India and ourselves—we shall be discussing the broader question at a later stage—but those of us who have considered this matter are satisfied that there is no possibility of extending trade with India by mandatory provisions in this Bill and by denying to Indians the liberty which we claim ourselves.
Whatever may be the purpose of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, he will only defeat his purpose by trying to secure statutory and binding force for something which in the end must depend upon the good will and the desire to trade as between one community and
another. With the greatest desire to see an extension of inter-imperial trade, so long as it can be brought about irrespective of penalties and statutes, I suggest to the Committee that this Amendment is not the way to achieve that end. This very important railway authority, controlling such vast undertakings and operating over such a wide area, ought to have complete power to carry on these concerns upon business principles—such power as would be claimed and exercised by any company in this country.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Would the hon. Gentleman's condemnation apply also to that part of my Amendment relating to conditions of labour?

Mr. FOOT: Certainly not. It is not the part of the Amendment about fair conditions of labour but the mandatory part of his proposal to which I object.

6.52p.m.

Mr. AMERY: I do not wish to add anything to the arguments which have been used by the Secretary of State and which seem to me to be conclusive. There is no prospect of any development of preference within the Empire if it is to be based on compulsion. There is however, just one further point which I would put to the Committee in order to suggest that this Amendment standing by itself could have no effect, or that if it is to have any effect at all, it would have to be supplemented by a provision taking over direct control of the Indian tariff. If this Amendment were passed, there is nothing to prevent the Indian Legislature fixing its tariff on railway materials so high that practically no railway material would be bought outside India, and such little as we should supply would be far less than we are supplying to India under present conditions.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Hear, hear.

Mr. AMERY: On the other band, if as I believe and hope, we can proceed on the basis of free, mutual co-operation, which already has shown promising results at Ottawa, and develop that policy further, India may well pass a preferential tariff on railway material which, with the Clause as it stands, will make certain that, acting on business principles, the railway authority will buy most of its needs from this country. But I can conceive nothing more certain to prevent
any community from giving a preference to this country than saddling it here and now with a mandatory obligation compelling it to buy its materials in the Empire.

6.54p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I do not wish to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), because it would be painful to me that we should find ourselves in regard to one part of the Empire viewing the idea of preference from different standpoints. I must in passing, however, refer to the fact that his words were ominous when he suggested that, apart from this Amendment altogether, the Indian Legislature might raise tariffs to a level which would be disastrous to British exporters to that country. I must remind my right. hon. Friend that in connection with the trade agreement which was made only the other day and which seems to have a direct bearing on what he has said, instead of granting British goods free entry it was suggested that there should be a 25 per cent. tariff and even that one-sided arrangement did not appeal to the people who are the masters of the Legislative Assembly to-day. I rise principally for the purpose of commenting on the speech of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot). Perhaps he does not appreciate that in this Amendment there is nothing discriminatory against India (r Indian manufacturers. All we are seeking to do is to stimulate the use of Indian and other Empire goods among the consuming public in India. There is nothing hostile to the people of India in this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman said that even if we passed the Amendment there would be nothing to prevent the Indian railway authority from going outside the Empire for its materials. I think he has overlooked the fact that the Amendment would make it a statutory matter.

Mr. FOOT: I said that it would be impossible to devise wording which would carry out that purpose, and such wording certainly has not been devised in this Amendment.

Sir H. CROFT: No doubt the hon. Member will help us with the wording when we come to the Report stage both
with regard to this part of the Amendment and also with regard to the other part which he says he supports. He also asked on what ground could we deny the right to a British railway company to purchase its materials wherever it chose. Under our present tariff system it is desirable that purchasers of material here should buy their goods within the British Empire. That is the case under our present preference system. I am not, however, going to argue that matter with the hon. Gentleman. I am concerned here with the mass of Members who supported the National Government at the last Election—and who continue to support them—with this policy in the forefront of their proposals, namely, to give every possible advantage to the people in our own country and the Empire oversea. I hope that there are many hon. Members here who generally support the Government on the constitutional principles of this Measure but yet are consistent to the Ottawa principle, and who will do everything in their power to secure that preference by one means or another shall be extended under these reform proposals in connection with India.
The Secretary of State said he had done everything possible for British and Empire trade. I do not want to criticise him in particular, but when he says that all the successive Secretary's of State since the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms have adopted this policy of throwing away the advantage of the British people and the British Empire, in these trading arrangements, that does not seem to me a matter of congratulation but rather a matter for shame. The more we look at this great and momentous Measure, the more we are struck by the fact that there is hardly a paragraph in it which endeavours to preserve for the British people the fruits of the great and wonderful things done by the British race in India in years gone by. The Secretary of State referred to a paragraph in the Report of the Statutory Commission dealing with the Fiscal Convention and also the question of railway material. I must point out that the Statutory Commission was presided over by a gentleman who at that time was a Free Trader, and to whom all those ideas were repugnant. But this Government has a very different record. It is based upon the confidence
of people who believe that we are reaching out for a great Imperial policy of co-operation and reciprocity—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The hon. and gallant Member is now trying to hang much too wide an argument upon this Amendment, which is limited to the question of the provision of railway materials.

Sir H. CROFT: If I have been led astray, it has been by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin, who in his speeches a little earlier led me to think that, perhaps, one or two of his arguments have sunk into the mind of the Committee, and ought to be replied to. I think the principle certainly stands; and when my right hon. Friend was referring to the words of the Statutory Commission in regard to railway material and to the Fiscal Convention as guiding the principle—so I understood him to say—I submit that the Fiscal Convention no longer stands. It has gone. We are writing on a clean slate here, and this is the last occasion on which you are going to be able to consider this vital public question. The Secretary of State says that the Government of India under these various Secretaries of State has been so careful for the interest of British manufactures and the British Empire that they have seen to it that only 25 per cent. of the railway material going into India came from foreign sources. Why should that 25 per cent. come from foreign sources? Everybody knows that there was very little difference in the prices. Everybody knows that contracts have gone to Germany, Belgium, Czechoslovakia and elsewhere. Why should thousands of our fellow-countrymen in the Midlands, in Lancashire and in other districts, be deprived of work year after year merely because this House, for some sloppy reason, has not the courage, the wisdom and the vision to lay it down that these railway materials for India henceforth should be provided by Indians or by other manufacturers in the. Empire, unless the price discrimination is such as to make it undesirable?
From every point of view, this is a matter on which the Committee can support this Amendment, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision. I assure him that what was done by the late Mr. Edwin Montagu and Lord Chelmsford—who joined the
Socialist party—and other Members of other parties who have let down British interests in India consistently since the establishment of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, is no argument why he should not turn from that kind of vice to the virtue of Conservative and Imperial principles and turn over a new leaf. if he does that, I am sure he will deserve our gratitude.

7.4 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with what is actually in the Amendment. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) also dealt with the Amendment as if the words "within the British Empire" were not there—and at present the great sub-continent of India is within the British Empire—and dealt with the whole matter as if, instead of these words, the words were "in Great Britain." This is not an Amendment to force the railway authorities to place railway orders only in this country, but merely to ensure that they should place their railway orders either with their own manufacturers, or, if they are not manufacturing what is required, that they should, as far as possible, place them in some other part of the British Empire, including this country. That is the Amendment. When my right hon. Friend speaks of what has taken place since 1919, and gives figures to show that we have in this country alone received 75 per cent. of the orders for railway materials, he seems to omit altogether the fact that we have got this Bill before us. We are not going to have a Government of India such as we have had. We are going to have a Government of an entirely different kind, and probably of an entirely different complexion, and one with different views altogether with regard to these matters. That being so, it is in this Bill that we should think of the future and ask ourselves, What, under these new conditions that we o are going to institute, will be the proper thing in the interest of Indian manufacturers and Indian labour and in the interest of manufacturers and labour throughout the British Empire That is the point.
In view of that, my hon. Friend's Amendment is, in my view, not only perfectly reasonable but absolutely necessary. I am sorry that I cannot agree with my
right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery)—with whom I usually agree—when he lays it down as an absolut ukase that you cannot hope to benefit the trade of a country or a combination of countries by any legislative method, but only by good will. I say that if that is the rule laid down, it is one that is neither applied nor found to work in the case of any foreign country in its overseas trade. Every other foreign country with overseas possessions sees that those possessions and the home country benefit reciprocally in trade matters. Take France, with her great African possessions. They are treated as if they were part of France, and nothing goes to them except what is made in France.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is again going far outside the scope of this Amendment.

Sir B. PETO: I am prepared to leave it at that. I cannot admit the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook that we must on no account attempt to do this because it is impossible to regulate trade by Act of Parliament. That was the statement he made, and I merely adduce an example to show that if that does apply to the British Empire—and I do not admit that it does—it does not apply in any other part of the world, and that a great deal of the trade of the world is done on very different lines. In view of that, I think we want a further answer from the Government—and an answer which will deal with the facts as they are and with the Amendment which is on the Paper. The facts are that we are putting into India an entirely new kind of Government, and arguments as to what has taken place during the last 20 years have no value as a guide to what will take place in the next 20 years. The other consideration is that the Amendment distinctly includes the produce of India itself, and there is no contest here between us and the policy of borne manufacture for which Mr. Gandhi stands. We are with him. Exactly the same argument applies to this country and any other part of the Empire. That being the Amendment and the situation as it is, I hope we shall have a further explanation from the Government as to why this Amendment
should be incontinently rejected, like every other Amendment we have put down in the attempt to improve this Bill.

7.11 p.m.

Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: I intervene to say a, few words on this subject, because I am not sure that the Committee is in full possession of all the circumstances which govern this case. Some years ago all goods of this description, plant, rails, etc., being for public purposes, were admitted into India free of customs duty. At a later stage they became liable to the customs duty that would have been imposed if private plant of that description had been bought. That meant, of course—and it is not a question of tariffs really—that what was taken out of the pockets of the State railways, or the railways in which the State was greatly interested, was put back into the general revenues of the country in the shape of customs. The material paid the duty and the duty went to the Government, but the railways were in a very large measure State-owned. So it is the case to-day. A great many of the railways have become entirely State railways; and even in those which remain private companies the proportion of capital held by shareholders and the proportion contributed by the State has been greatly altered, until the capital held by the State is very much larger than the capital held by the shareholders. That is one point in which I would contend that the tariff question really has not much to do with it, because it goes out of one pocket into another to a very large extent.
There is another point—and I know the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong. I would like to state the position not only as I generally understood it in India but as I understood it when, after retirement and with the consent of the then Secretary of State, I joined the board of the Burma Railway. The same thing existed in connection with the Burma railway as in connection with other guaranteed railways at that time; that is to say, the board here controlled a great many matters, but to a very large extent they were under the control of the Railway Board in India and of the Secretary of State in England. The Government had a representative on the board to watch the interests of the India Office and the
Government of India and to see that no rule was varied. The position, as I understood it then, was not this great question of good will, or tariffs, or preference or anything of that kind.
As I understood it, the matter originated not in the question of fiscal autonomy but in some resolutions passed by the Legislative Assembly that goods required from abroad should be bought in the cheapest market. The Government of India at that time was not responsible to the Legislature and the railways were entirely reserved at the Centre. The Government of India went so far as to make a promise that if the goods were equal in quality and equally effective with British goods from the United Kingdom, and were also cheaper, then they should not be obliged to buy from the United Kingdom but should buy in the cheapest market, always supposing that the goods were equal in quality and durability. The London board had power to ask for tenders, and consequently such tenders came before the board. Some came from firms in this country and others came from, say, Germany or Belgium in respect of particular goods; and the Government member of the board, appointed by the India Office, had to decide and recommend to the Secretary of State whether there were circumstances in which the lowest British tender should be accepted.
The consulting engineer belonged to the very old firm of Rendell Palmer and Tritton, and he used to inspect the workshops in Germany or Brussels, as the case might be, and report as to the quality of the foreign goods. He did this, I think, very fairly. If the quality was about the same he said so, and he did not try to make out that the German or Belgian goods, or whatever they were, were decidedly inferior. He might in some cases have found them inferior, and he did, but in a large number of cases he said they were as good as the British. There was another factor in the case, namely, the promptness with which the goods could be delivered, and if they were wanted urgently and the despatch was going to be slower, in that case he had permission from the Government of India to take the British goods, even if they were slightly higher in price. That was all in redemption of a promise made to the Indian Legislative Assembly that the railway board would buy goods in
India if they were available, or abroad if they were not available in India, and that as between foreign countries and the United Kingdom the test should be (1) the price, and the other the quality and durability of the material.
Those were the tests by which the question was decided, and they have nothing to do with good will or otherwise, because the Legislative Council had stipulated that they should be free to buy goods from Germany or any other country if they were cheaper, and the Government of India, which at that time was in no way responsible to the Legislature, had agreed to that. Therefore, the question of tariffs and preferences hardly comes into it, and if hon. Members will look at the Amendment, they will see that it says:
It shall be the duty of the authority so far as it may be reasonable to ensure that plant, goods and material required within the service of the railways.
and so on. That was exactly the way, as far as it was reasonable, that the practice of obtaining goods required by the railways was carried out, and those were the principles on which the tenders were accepted or not. Therefore, the Amendment, if accepted, would merely be carrying out what has been the custom for a great many years past. It is not a question of giving preference, but simply a matter of choosing material in India and accepting tenders on a reasonable basis. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to agree to some form of words which will continue that practice and still observe the promise made to the Legislative Assembly at that time.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. DAVID MASON: I think the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment are unnecessarily alarmed that trade will not come to this country from India. It is bound to come here, because we promote the finance of those railways on account of the Indian loans which are placed in this country. All Indian loans placed here must go to India either in goods or in service, and hon. Members are, as I say, unnecessarily alarmed, quite apart from one's thoughts upon the question of Free Trade or Protection, in putting down this Amendment. I would like to emphasise the point brought out by the last speaker in the earlier part of his remarks, that most of the railways
in India are State railways and, therefore, financed by India. Most of the loans for many years to come will be placed in this market, and all these loans that are placed here and all credits established and created by India in this country must go out to India either in goods or in services.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State told us that 75 per cent. of the railway material in the past has been purchased in this country, and I believe that, as a result of the close connection between India and ourselves, even more of the loans placed here for financing the Indian railways, which are largely State railways, will go out to India from this country, because there is no other way of getting the credit which is created by placing or floating a loan in this country on behalf of India. Therefore, I would urge upon hon. Members who are concerned about the necessity for putting this into the Statute that it is unnecessary; and I agree that on the much higher ground of freedom, which has built up and made South Africa one of our best customers, this Amendment is unnecessary. We only hold Canada because we granted full autonomy to Canada, and while we are not giving full autonomy to India, the nearer we can approach to that high ground of freedom, the greater will be our credit.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall not, I trust, endeavour to retrace at all the arguments which others have used, but I must address myself for a few moments to the basic foundation of the argument of the Secretary of State. His reasoning, his advice, is that we must trust entirely to good will in this matter, that good will will bring us a richer harvest than anything that could be obtained by any mandatory injunction in a measure; and I need not say how he was warmly supported in that contention by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot). Indeed, it is remarkable how the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Bodmin think alike. It is a case of two hearts that beat as one. They might have collaborated for a lifetime in the same Government, so harmonious and sympathetic are their views.
But let us look at this question of good will on which everything is to depend
Where is your good will? We are told to look at the past, and that in the past, since the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, 75 per cent. of the orders have been placed in the British Empire and only 25 per cent. elsewhere. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) pointed out, this is entirely a new situation. This is a new deal. Here we are to have an entirely fresh Constitution, involving a transfer of sovereignty such as did not exist before. Very often, after the sun has gone down, there is a glow in the sky, but even in that case 25 per cent. of the orders went elsewhere, even in those periods, when we are told that we have had good will, 25 per cent. went elsewhere, to our very great disadvantage. But now you are not going to have good will. This Bill is regarded as an affront by every section of Indian opinion, and I must point out that it is these orders which will be used as counters of warfare, not necessarily for trading purposes or on economic grounds, but for counters of political warfare.
Of course they will be used. The tariff is one of the great levers by which the Indian Assemblies will set to work to extort diminutions of the safeguards and to wrest away from the Government those powers that are withheld from them. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) told us how terribly effective the tariff could be, how by a stroke of the pen, with no discrimination, they could shut out the entire produce of this country and confine purchases entirely to India.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is again going, like other hon. Members, far beyond the scope of the Amendment.

Mr. CHURCHILL: With very great respect, may I, on the point of Order, submit that I was directly addressing myself to the arguments of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook? I certainly had no intention, I can assure you, of going any further upon my own initiative into that field. I only thought I might venture as far as you had permitted him to go, because his statement was so very present in my mind, and no doubt in the mind of the Committee. His statement that it would be possible to confine Indian railway purchases to India alone
by merely raising the tariff struck me as so very sinister and disquieting that I thought I might certainly emphasise it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: So long as the right hon. Gentleman confined himself to the statement of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), that by the use of tariffs on railway material this Amendment could be rendered nugatory, he would be in order, but it seemed to me that he was going far beyond that to the general question of the use of tariffs by the Indian Government.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have finished entirely with this point, because it does not arise upon this question except in so far as it was brought in by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, and that only as an illustration. The point that I want to make, however, with your permission, is the question of the first set of leverages to procure political advantages, by means of the tariffs, and the second set of leverages by the placing of orders. What will you have when this Bill is in operation? We have been told that it will bring the greatest resentment among all classes in India, and you will have a great political struggle continuing year after year. The Viceroy will be forced to use his powers, and that use of his powers will be resented. What is the remedy? The remedy is to place a large order, unreasonably, irrationally, in a foreign country, and to pick out the foreign country, no doubt, with which it would be most offensive to the people of Great Britain to see this large order placed. I remember very well, when the Irish Free State were given their plenary powers, when there was supposed to be a settlement between us, that the first thing they did when they came to build their great electric plant was to place the order in Germany. Where did they go to buy coal? They went to Poland, to anywhere but Great Britain. That was not because of economic considerations or of any commercial balancing of pros and cons, or profit and loss, but because of political malice. Here also you will have political malice, and the way in which the British Government in India, the Secretary of State, and, under him, the Viceroy will be subjected to pressure will be by the invidious, unreasonable, and hostile placing of orders—orders which could quite well come
here, which possibly ought to come here, on economic grounds—abroad. I think that shows how very serious this situation is.
The right hon. Gentleman assumes himself to possess the good will of India. On the contrary, these are the actual counters of political warfare, and I think we must consider it from a new point of view. You cannot predicate good will. You have no right to predicate good will. You dare not even attempt to obtain the assent of any section of Indian opinion for your Measure. You are forcing this upon them, and, of course, they will resent it. Here in their hands is an indefinite series of means of irritation, of means of retaliation and pin pricks, which can be exercised at the expense of British trade and to the annoyance of the British people. Then, no doubt, we shall hear the hon. Member for Bodmin coming forward and saying, "Ah, well, it is true there is not that good will for which we had hoped; now you must remove those political checks which you have hitherto introduced, and then the full flow of sweetness and sympathy will once again be passing between India and Great Britain." I can hear the speech which the hon. Member would make about that. It seems to me that when we are transferring sovereignty, as we are doing, and when we are confronting ourselves with a decade of strife, tumult and irritation such as India has never seen for several generations, we are entitled to take a new view and to make reasonable provision in accordance with modern opinion.
As has been said, no other country in the world would even debate such a matter; it would be taken as a matter of course that an effort should be made to give a distinct bias in favour of and a preference to inter-Imperial goods or goods produced in Great Britain. All the more is that right when the power which claims that consideration is the protecting power by land and sea, and, in addition, is the source from which the credit originates. It is not an unreasonable proposal which has been put forward by my hon. Friend. I am very glad to see the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), because we have not really had in this matter the support for which we had hoped from that great city in the centre of England from whence he comes. On the contrary the hon. Gentleman's
case up to now has been a case of what might be said:
So shines a good deed in a naughty world.
There is another text which occurs to me which says that there is more joy over one sinner that repents than over all the rest of the body that has hitherto continued to march steadfastly forward together. I would urge my hon. Friend to press his Amendment to a division. I shall certainly support him if he does so. It seems that on this occasion we are proposing the special precautions which are appropriate to the situation which is to be created by this Bill, and I trust that in any further discussions we shall not hear from the Secretary of State any more of this fallacious and misleading talk about good will. He says that we must not put anything in about trade because it would upset the Indian four-sevenths of the railway authority; it would upset them terribly and confront their ideas of autonomy and sovereignty and so forth. When, however, you stick in safeguards of every kind which they repudiate and against which they are going to war, that, of course, is not to be considered in any way.
This is only one of many points at which the evils and absurdities of this Bill can be plainly viewed by the British public. There are many such, and as we move along through this long labyrinth of clauses and arguments, we reach a point from which we can turn round and survey the scene. Here is one such point from which you can see that you are creating a political system, a consequence of which will be that the irritation in India will be worked off in striking at British trade by the placing of orders in foreign countries. That is the course upon which the Secretary of State has launched himself and it will have an undoubted result, at the end of all his labours, which will be to our extreme misfortune and suffering.

7.35 p.m.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: If there be one thing that makes me hesitate to intervene in these Debates, it is that I may be called the right hon. Gentleman's good little deed for the day, or that he should think, possibly, that I was endeavouring to ingratiate myself into for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), I am rather his good graces. Like the hon. Member
alarmed and unhappy at letting this Clause go through as it is, particularly after hearing the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He seemed to base the argument for the rejection of the principle of this Amendment on past achievements and the good will which has existed since 1917. If you apply the principle of good will as a basis for future policy, you must equally take into account the opposite feeling of resentment. Mental experts will tell you that there are two definite feelings—one of good will with consequent happiness, and the other of resentment with consequent unhappiness.
My right hon. Friend based his hope for the future on the evolution of good will. Right through, since the introduction of the Bill, we have been told that my right hon. Friend has been hoping for a change in the feeling of resentment. He has all the time said that he hoped this Bill would wipe away the resentment in many quarters. Nevertheless, he has introduced, and we have supported, safeguards in case that feeling of resentment does not die. Equally, if we have that state of affairs, we must allow for a possibility of good will not continuing and resentment taking its place. If we allow safeguards in case resentment does not die, we must allow safeguards in case good will does die. The weakness of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman is that he is basing himself on something in rejecting the Amendment which he has not allowed for in the main principles of the Bill. For those reasons, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reassure those Members who are supporting him through the major principles of the Bill that we are not jeopardising the interests of British industry by allowing the false premises of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping to pass unchallenged.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. HANNON: I appreciate the difficulties, which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State pointed out, in legislating for any particular Dominion by statute. Could not the right hon. Gentleman introduce words to show the view of the House that preference should be given to British Empire goods? I do not want to press him at all, but it is difficult to pass a mandatory obligation on any part of the self-governing Dominions.

Duchess of ATHOLL: India is not a self-governing Dominion.

Mr. HANNON: If this Measure becomes law, we make India for all intents and purposes a Dominion.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that we had better leave that somewhat moot point for another occasion.

Mr. HANNON: I only want to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should in some form of words indicate the strong feeling felt in the House that it is important to India and this country that everything should be done to make reciprocal trade possible.

7.41p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: This Amendment should be included in the Bill. It is not many years since I addressed 2,000 locomotive workers in St. Rollox. It is all very well the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) saying that we should express a pious opinion in the Bill, but suppose India turned against us, what are we to say to the people in Glasgow who make locomotives? An experience of the so-called concessions has been given by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in regard to what happened in Ireland when we abandoned the methods of Cromwell and a lot of employment was taken away from our people. We have no answer to our own unemployed and our own engineers if we do not insert some such provision as this, except that we ought to be ashamed of ourselves for not taking the precaution to protect their daily bread. The Indian railways were practically built by British capital and goods supplied by the North British Locomotive Company. Are we not going to take care of this employment? Is it to be allowed to decline for political considerations and be allowed to go to other countries? Is it to be used as a means of squeezing us for other purposes? I hope the Committee will see that our own working people are protected.

7.42p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: The hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) seems to have been dazzled by the highly coloured picture of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) when
he was dealing with this quite small Amendment.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Quite small?

Mr. MOLSON: This Amendment is a comparatively small one dealing with the purchase of railway materials. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to discuss whether India under the new Constitution would use methods of coercion and boycott and refuse to buy British goods in order to extract further political concessions from the British Government. If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to Clause 12, he will find that it is one of the Governor-General's special responsibilities to see that methods of that kind are not adopted. In Clause 177 it is provided that:
the authority in discharging their functions…shall act on business principles, due regard being had by them to the interests of agriculture, industry, commerce and the general public.
If they refused to buy good railway material in this country for the express purpose of bringing political pressure to bear upon the Government, not only would that bring the special responsibility of the Governor-General into operation, but they would also not be acting in accordance with Clause 177. I could well understand this argument if it were the only argument that had been put forward, but the supporters of the Amendment put forward two arguments which are inconsistent. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping and the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) suggested that this was going to be a great protection for the working-classes of this country who make railway materials. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) pointed out that this was in no way an attempt to safeguard the commercial interests of this country in particular, but that it was merely required by this Amendment that preference should be given to British produced goods, including goods produced in India. It would, therefore, still be possible for the railway authorities, if they desired, to discriminate against this country by buying all the railway material which they required in India, however uneconomic that might be. Again, I could understand the view of those who are believers in the policy of using force in order to compel India to trade with us putting forward an Amend-
ment of this kind if it were likely to be effective for its purpose, but I would point out that the Amendment says that the Authority, "So far as it may be reasonable," shall buy the railway material in this country, and thereby leaves discretion to the Authority. It is quite obvious that in any case of this kind it is necessary to give discretion to the Authority, and therefore it would be perfectly easy for them on every occasion to use their discretion in a perverse way.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member is now arguing against what he said in the earlier part of his speech, when he referred to Clause 12 and Clause 177 and described how the Governor-General would intervene if unreasonable use were made of these powers. Now he wishes to show that unreasonable use could be made of them.

Mr. MOLSON: Really, my right hon. Friend does not do me justice. I drew attention to Clause 12 in connection with the highly-coloured picture which had been drawn of pressure being brought to bear upon His Majesty's Government in this country, which is exactly one of the cases in which it would be possible and necessary for the Governor-General to use his special responsibility. When I referred to Clause 177 I think I added the words "if there is any value in a statutory safeguard of that kind," and I do not believe there is any value in a statutory safeguard of that kind in cases where discretion is left to an Authority to accept one tender for a contract rather than another. Finally, although I could understand the attempt to use force in this way if it were likely to be effective, I am unable to understand how the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir B. Croft) was able to call in the Ottawa Agreements in support of an Amendment of this kind. Among the Ottawa Agreements the most successful was the one with India, where India was given power to negotiate without any interference by the Secretary of State. Those Agreements were entered into willingly and without any coercion, and the Ottawa principle, in so far as it has been successful in the case of the Dominions, and to a far greater extent successful in the case of India, has been that we do
not presume to exploit the Empire but leave to the Dominions and to India the power of entering voluntarily into agreements with us.

7.48p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: May I, before the right hon. Gentleman replies, briefly remind the Committee of the indications we have had of how some Indian politicians view this question of British trade? Some years ago the Municipal Council of Bombay placed on their paper a resolution against the purchase of goods from Britain.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Amendment has nothing to do with any corporation in India.

Viscount WOLMER: On a point of Order. Surely we are entitled to draw analogies to show what other Indians in responsible positions have done in a like case?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would point out that we are dealing here solely with railways.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The suggestion has been made that we must depend on good will, and the Noble Lady was only giving an instance of ill will.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In any case I cannot see that any corporation has the power to purchase railway material.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I only mentioned that case as an illustration of how the power to purchase is viewed by politicians in different parts of India. In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery), who referred to the Ottawa Conference, and looked forward to the continuance of Imperial Preference, I would say that he appears to be quite unaware of the hostility to Imperial Preference shown even by the last Indian Assembly, to which I referred the other day, despite the perfectly clear benefits derived in the first year of that system. My right hon. Friend further ignored the fact that the dominant political party in India is now the Congress Party, which has declared its hostility to British trade. These are indications of how prominent Indian politicians view this question of trade with Britain, and we must take
account of that attitude. Another indication was found in the fact that two years ago an Indian gentleman, the President of the Federated Chambers of Commerce of India, declared that the time had come when it was necessary for every Indian to use purely Indian goods to the exclusion of all others. So, in spite of the terms of Clause 177, there might be a strong desire on the part of members of the proposed Railway Authority to purchase material in India.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the Noble Lady that there is nothing in this Amendment to prevent the purchase by the Railway Authority of the material in India. The sole question arising is as to whether the railway material should be purchased entirely from the British Empire, which includes India, or from foreign countries. The power to purchase in India is not affected by this Amendment.

Mr. WISE: Is there not at the end of this Amendment something about the fair wage clause applying?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The reference to wages appears to apply to all the transactions, and so long as the wages paid were fair according to Indian standards, presumably that is all that would matter.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I pass to the question put by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), who asked, "Can you imagine anybody in this country adopting an Amendment of this kind?" I would ask him whether he could imagine any Government in this country doing what the Indian Assembly did last year, namely, continue the tariffs on textiles at the existing high rate after it had been shown that they were giving a diminishing revenue. That seems to me an indication of hostility to British trade even on the part of the last Assembly. When we find political prejudice so dominating the actions of political parties in India, even when they are not in complete power, does that not really show that conditions in India are quite peculiar, and that therefore precautions have to be taken which we should not dream of imposing in any other case? For that reason the reference of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) to Canada and South Africa seemed to me to be entirely beside the
point, because the conditions in India and the feeling in India and the unpractical things which have been done in India, fortunately find no analogy in any other part of the Empire.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I am sure that when the speeches of the Noble Lady and her friends come to be read in India, they will do anything but create an atmosphere of good will towards this country. I cannot think how she can assume that it will create good will, and bring about what she calls a reasonable attitude on the part of Indians, when in speech after speech she is accusing Indians of all sorts of actions and saying, in effect, "Although you are in the Empire you are not like anybody else in the Empire." I regard this Amendment as extraordinarily bad business for the Empire. I have always understood that the idea in the case of the Empire was to get mutual trade, but we appear to have given that up for the policy of the "gombeen man," trying to get people into your power by acting as a moneylender and then making them buy at your shop. I think that is a peculiarly low view to take of things, and I am surprised to note that the very people who take that line are those who are always protesting that we went to India for her good, and that we are so disinterested, while all the time they wish to tie India down, so far as they can, to buy in this or that shop. A further point is that while this Amendment endeavours to secure certain advantages to the whole Empire there is nothing mutual about it, because everybody knows that there are parts of the Empire which do not treat India fairly. Why should hon. Members try to impose one condition on India such as they do not impose on the rest of the Empire, unless they do not really recognise India as part of the Empire? But that is the trouble with regard to the attitude taken up by hon. Members associated with this Amendment—they do not really treat Indians as part of the Empire, but as a subject race.

7.55p.m.

Sir S. HOARE.: I have little to add to what. I said in the earlier stage of the Debate, but I have heard certain observations to which I ought to make some answer. It seems to he assumed by a good many of my right hon. and hon.
Friends that I am a very foolish person, a confirmed optimist, always hoping that things will turn out better and trusting entirely to a good will which, in their view, does not exist. Let me say in reply that if I am a terrible optimist they are terrible pessimists. I am inclined here and now to make this suggestion, that for the rest of these Debates we should pair. I will say nothing about good will if my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) will say nothing about ill will. Let us leave good will and ill will entirely out of it and approach all these questions on their merits alone. Secondly, some of my hon. Friends who are criticising my views upon this Amendment take the line that at a time when we are making a great change in India we are taking no precautions at all for the future. They seem to have forgotten that we are at the moment considering the setting up of a railway authority to be run on business lines independent of political interference. From the first to the last Clause in this Chapter there are safeguards of various kinds surrounding the business principles on which this authority is to be run, as to the locus standi that the Governor-General has, and as to the influence he has with the members and the chief executive officer. We are taking every precaution. We are not leaving the whole future to chance.
Therefore, I say to those who are supporting this Amendment that they are basing their criticism of the Government upon two false assumptions, first, that we are thinking only of good will as the safeguard of the future, and secondly that we are making no safeguards to ensure that the railway authority will be run on business lines. Let my hon. Friends assume that so far my arguments have not convinced them, but then let them look at the actual Amendment and ask themselves whether it really is going to help British trade or not. My own view is that it is so vague in its phraseology that nobody will be able to carry it into effect, and that the certain reaction which it will have upon opinion in India will be to excite suspicions in the mind of almost every Indian, both in British India and in the Indian
States, and make this authority much less likely to give orders to British firms than they would otherwise be. I am sure the immediate effect in India will be to stimulate a movement that has made progress now for many years—to make Indian opinion mobilise itself in favour of restricting these orders to Indian firms and Indian firms alone.
The Committee will observe that under this Amendment it would be perfectly feasible for the Federal board to give all its orders to Indian firms. For these reasons and the reason chiefly that I think that the Amendment would not achieve the purpose of its movers—on the other hand, it would certainly create a great deal of suspicion in Indian minds and on that account would injure British trade almost inevitably, directly or indirectly—I say to the Committee that they would be wise, accepting all the views we hold as to our desire to stimulate British and Empire trade in every possible way, not to impose a restriction in India that would not be workable and that would be greatly resented.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. REMER: The theme which has been passing through the speeches of the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have spoken from the Opposition benches and through that of the right hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat is exactly the same. They have both told us that we who are opposing this Bill are actuated by the same lack of good will towards the Indian people. We should be more readily convinced by the Secretary of State if we saw some evidence of that good will which we rightly hold should be shown to British trade. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) referred to the Ottawa Agreement. I use it only as an analogy, but the Ottawa Agreement has not been carried out by India.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We really cannot go into a discussion of the Ottawa Agreement.

Mr. REMER: I have said that I was only using it as an analogy.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If I allowed the hon. Member to use that as an analogy, I should have another hon. Member getting up to prove that he is wrong. We must keep to the Amendment on the Paper.

Mr. REMER: I will keep to it, and I have no intention of going any further. I was only saying that in reply to the hon. Member for Doncaster. I am more tempted to intervene in this Debate by the speech that was made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason). He made the most fallacious statement, which was exploded skyhigh many years ago, that if a loan is raised in London it must of necessity be spent in goods within the United Kingdom.

Mr. MASON: Goods or services. Would the hon. Member explain how it is liquidated?

Mr. REMER: The hon. Gentleman's argument was proved to be fallacious by the Secretary of State in his first speech in which lie stated that only 75 per cent. of the goods purchased by the Indian railways are bought within the British Empire. It has been proved many times in this House that the amount of these loans is not spent in this country, and that in many cases these loans and credits are used to purchase abroad. But there is a very important question I want to ask of the Secretary og State. He told us in his first speech that 75 per cent. of the goods which are purchased by the Indian railways are purchased from the British Empire. It would be of considerable value to the House to know whether that 75 per cent. is arrived at by value or volume. That is a matter o great importance, for the reason that it is not merely those things, like locomotives, railway carriages and steel rails — the first three items which spring to our mind— which are purchased by the Indian railways. There are a thousand and one different items of stores which are purchased by these railways, and it is in the minor stores, in particular, where this country has lost her trade. I could give many items from the Black Country which before 1917 were almost exclusively bought within the United Kingdom, and which to-day are being bought in any old foreign country which employs sweated labour. It is well known to everybody who has any knowledge of the business of this country that we have lost considerably by the intervention of foreign countries, especially since 1917. It seems to me therefore that if there is to be good will there should be some display of it, particularly
by the Indian politicians and various other people in India itself.
We in Great Britain have not had a fair deal in obtaining these orders. The Indian State railways have consistently since 1917 been purchasing from foreign countries. I would like the right hon. Gentleman, if he can, to give us the figures of what proportion of goods was bought from this country prior to 1917. I think that it would be shown on an examination of those figures that prior to 1917 there was at least 99 per cent. purchased within the United Kingdom. I feel that this Amendment, which, after all, says "So far as may be be reasonable" and "under conditions of labour which are fair," should appeal to every Member of this House when we find that this county is subjected to competition where the wages are in many case one-tenth of what are paid in this country. It is an elementary duty of everyone in this House to see that the workers of this country and of the Empire are safeguarded against unfair competition.

8.8 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: The Secretary of State's argument appeared to me to be inconsistent. He makes an appeal to this House to rely on what he calls good will, and then he goes on to explain that he has himself in this Bill provided safeguards which in his judgment should ensure fair treatment of British trade. Our point of view is that the safeguards in these Clauses are insufficient, and we attach importance to this Amendment because we believe it to be an additional safeguard. It is not really any answer for the Secretary of State to say that in his judgment there might be some way round the wording of this Clause. The effect of these safeguards is cumulative. If we do not think that the safeguards he has provided are sufficient, we are entitled to press for further safeguards asserting in an Act of Parliament the principle that as far as possible goods produced in the British Empire should be employed on the Indian railways. I should not have ventured to trouble the Committee if it had not been for the speech of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). It is a deplorable thing to see hon. Members opposite, who claim to represent British labour, not lifting a little finger to help British labour in this matter; instead, they sit and smile
sweetly and superciliously, and obviously do not take the silghtest interest in the matter at all

Mr. LOGAN: How did you help the British seamen in regard to the same question?

Viscount WOLMER: I certainly should not be in order in replying to the hon. Member on this Amendment. I do think that the speech of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) was deplorable; apparently, it represents the view of the Labour party. We regard it as morally right that a preference should be given to British-made goods within the Indian Empire. When we consider all that Britain has done for India, we are morally perfectly justified in asking that this constitutional machinery which we are placing in the hands of Indians should not be used to the detriment of British trade. The hon. Member for Limehouse seems to think that there is something inconsistent between that attitude and the grant of self-government. I deny that absolutely. He seems to think that there is something inconsistent between that and the welfare of the Indians. The prosperity of British trade and the greatness of this nation very much concern the welfare of the Indians. Unless this country is prosperous and powerful, it will not be able to sustain the burden that the Indian Empire imposes upon us, and it is futile to think that a population of 45,000,000 can be supported in these islands if we are deprived of our Imperial trade.
Therefore, I regard us as absolutely entitled on every moral ground to put forward this claim to the Indian people, and we are entitled also to put it forward in the Constitution Act. The hon. Member for Limehouse seems to think that the mere fact that we dare to do such a thing will generate such ill-will against us that we shall lose all our trade. I do not believe that that is the way to get good will. We shall get good will by saying frankly to all and sundry that we do expect a fair deal for British trade in this respect, and if we embody that in our Constitution I believe that we shall gain the respect of the people. It is deplorable that the Labour Party have not the gumption to lift a little finger in this matter.

8. 14 p.m.

Mr. WISE: I understand the eagerness of hon. Gentlemen opposite to proceed to a division. They have made up their minds that they do not in any way wish to safeguard the work of the people they purport to represent. One can understand why they do not wish to do so. It is not to their interest that the British workers should be prosperous. But for discontent none of them would ever be here, and I quite understand that they desire to safeguard their Parliamentary seats. But we have a higher duty than to ensure the return of people like hon. Members opposite. The House would be little the worse for their absence and possibly the people of England would be very much the better off.
I wish, briefly, to reply to one or two points raised by supporters of the Government; not to those raised by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), because they have already been dealt with. First, I will refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson), who put forward an extremely bad case. He seemed to base the bulk of his speech on the contention that the Amendment has no meaning. If I remember his words correctly, he said that the insertion of the word "reason" in the Amendment meant that we gave complete discretion to the board to purchase where and how they would, and that the Amendment had otherwise no meaning at all. I hope I am not misrepresenting his argument. Such is not the case, because the insertion of the word "reason" gives discretion, not to the board, but to the Governor-General. It is for the Governor-General to judge whether they are using reasonable discretion or not, and, if they fail to use what he considers reasonable discretion, he may intervene and supersede the railway board. The amendment therefore has very considerable importance, both for the Indian Federal Railway Authority and for the possible sources of supply in this country from which they may purchase.
The record of the Indian railways has not been overwhelmingly encouraging. Under the present administration purchases of State-subsidised materials have been made already from Hungarian State workshops—to take one example—against materials made in this country under ordinary conditions. It is not as though
the Indian railways were free agents. I claim that they are not. Without the intervention of this country, there would be no Indian railways. Without the presence of this country, there would not be one sleeper or one rail laid in India. It was under the guns of our infantry that the railways were laid in India, and it will be with the wealth of this country that future railways will be financed. There is no doubt that we have definite moral claim upon some of the fruits of our enterprise. Wherever we have given benefit we are surely entitled to draw some reward. Had we built the railways to civilise that country purely for the benefit of other people than ourselves, could we have justified the expenditure of the lives of our ancestors in that task? It is only fair to say that the Indian Empire exists, not only for the benefit of Indians, but for the benefit of the English. It is a partnership, and, as a partnership, it should be treated. The partnership is even more emphasised in this case than in any other case in India. The railways are the creation of our capital, brains and labour; surely we are entitled to see that the replacements of those railways come from the same source.
I wish to refer to the speech of the Secretary of State. He accused those who hold the same point of view as I do of creating ill will in India by our speeches, and he said that our suggestion that there might be subsequent discrimination would create ill will in India. I wonder whether the Secretary of State has ever read an Indian newspaper,

whether he realises yet that it is not possible to create more ill will, that every known source is rampant in creating ill will now and that any moderate suggestion put forward in this Committee for safeguarding Great Britain from the consequences of that ill will, which is being fostered by the weakness shown at the moment by our own Government, is not likely to create any further ill will, but rather, on the contrary, to lessen it. We were told by the Secretary of State that if we refrained from talking about ill will he would refrain from talking about good will, but the Secretary of State could not refrain from talking about good will. If he endeavoured to do so, he would be almost a trappist for the rest of this Debate. It would impose a vow of silence upon him because a—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems to be getting away from the Amendment and on to the Bill. I quite appreciate his difficulty in talking on this Amendment further without repeating himself. He has gone beyond the limits of the Amendment.

Mr. WISE: I was endeavouring to reply to the Secretary of State.

The CHAIRMAN: I hope that the hon. Member will understand that I do not approve of his reply, because it is not on the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 41; Noes, 221.

Division No.133.]
AYES.
[8.23 p.m.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Atholl, Duchess of
Greene, William P. C.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (Pd'gt'n, S.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Burnett, John George
Knox, Sir Alfred
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Lees-Jones, John
Wayland, Sir William A.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Wise, Alfred R.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)



Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Nunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Mr. Remer and Mr. Donner.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Attlee, Clement Richard
Bernays, Robert


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Banfield, John William
Blindell, James


Albery, Irving James
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Bossom, A. C.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Batey, Joseph
Boulton, W. W.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)


Assheton, Ralph
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Paling, Wilfred


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson. John Allen


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Patrick, Colin M.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pearson, William G.


Butler, Richard Austen
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Penny, Sir George


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hornby, Frank
Petherick, M.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cassels, James Dale
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cayzer Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Iveagh, Countess of
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Cleary, J. J.
Jamleson, Douglas
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Jenkins, Sir William
Ropner, Colonel L.


Conant, R. J. E.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cooper, A. Duff
John, William
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Ker, J. Campbell
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Sandys, Duncan


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Selley, Harry R.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Knight, Holford
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Davies, Stephen Owen
Lawson, John James
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Dickle, John P.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-in-F.)


Doran, Edward
Leonard, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lewis, Oswald
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Liddall, Walter S.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Duggan, Hubert John
Llewellin, Major John J.
Soper, Richard


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Dunglass, Lord
Loftus, Pierce C.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Eastwood, John Francis
Logan, David Gilbert
Spens, William Patrick


Edmondson, Major Sir James
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Eimley, Viscount
Lunn, William
Stones, James


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mabane, William
Storey, Samuel


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Strauss, Edward A.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
McKie, John Hamilton
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Ganzonl, Sir John
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, William James


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Tinker, John Joseph


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mainwaring, William Henry
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Train, John


Goff, Sir Park
Mailalleu, Edward Lancelot
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Maxton, James.
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Meller, Sir Richard James
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Grimston, R. V.
Milner, Major James
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Groves, Thomas E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Warrender, Sir Victor A.G.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Hanbury, Cecil
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)



Harris, Sir Percy
Morrison, William Shephard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Orr Ewing, I. L.
and Major George Davies.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 178 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 179.—(Acquisition, and sale of land by, and contracts and liabilities of, the Railway Authority.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.32 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: It is to the interest of everyone in India, both British and Indian, that this question of the purchase and sale of land should be outside any possible political influence, and this appears to be all the more necessary in view of the fact that, apparently, the application of these provisions will include the native States. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether any-
thing has been ascertained from the Princes with regard to this question, as I imagine that it is one of the points at issue in connection with the White Paper.

8.33 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: The wording of this Clause is very wide. Sub-section (1) says that the Authority shall not acquire or dispose of any land. Land is needed by railway companies for such purposes as giving access to their stations and for alterations or additions, and I cannot think of anything more cumbersome than a provision that the Authority may not acquire any land whatever. Further, Subsection (2) of the Clause says that contracts made by or on behalf of the Authority shall be enforceable against the Authority, and not against the Federation, and that the Authority may sue or be sued in like manner as a company operating a railway may sue and be sued. I would remind the Government that nothing is felt by local authorities in this country to be more galling than the necessity, whenever they want to acquire trivial quantities of land—minute fractions of an acre—for the purpose of squaring off a playground or something of that sort, of going through all the cumbrous procedure of applying to Whitehall for sanction. I can understand that there may be good reasons for such provisions as these when it is a question of large purchases of land, such as would be required for the making of a new railway, but the Clause appears to be so worded as to apply to the acquisition by the Authority of any area of land whatever, no matter how minute.

8.35 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): Two points have been raised in relation to Clause 179. The first was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) when he asked the relationship of this Clause to the Indian States. It may be said that no power is given by this Clause to acquire land of any Indian State, and I think that that answers his question. The other question was in relation to the acquisition of land by the Federal Railway Authority. I agree with the hon. Baronet that it might be necessary in certain cases for the railway company to acquire perhaps a small parcel of land and that it might be very
convenient for them so to do. Under the terms of this Clause the power for acquiring land is in the hands of the Federal Government, which will do so on behalf of the Railway Authority, and the power to acquire that land is given in Clause 126 which says:
The Federation may, if it deems it necessary to acquire for the purposes of the Federation (including purposes of the Federal Railway Authority) any land situate in a Province, require the Province to acquire the land on behalf of the Federation."
That has been thought to be the most convenient method of acquiring the necessary land for the purposes of the Federal Railway Authority, and that is why specific reference is made in Clause 126 to the
purposes of the Federal Railway Authority.
I hope that that answers the point to which the hon. Baronet has referred, and, if not, I shall do my best to answer any further points he may have to ask.

Sir B. PETO: Is it necessary to frame the Clause so wide as to preclude the railway authority from purchasing from a private individual, not from any province or State, but merely a trivial purchase from a private individual to improve the access to a, railway station, or for purposes of that kind. Surely they should be able to make this sort of small purchase from private individuals without this cumbrous proceeding.

Mr. BUTLER: I think that the point is met by the opening words of the Clause:
Except in such classes of case as may be specified in regulations to be made by the Federal Government.
Presumably the Federal Government will make regulations specifying certain classes of case which would exactly correspond to those particular points which have been raised in the question, whereas in the more general case power will be given to the Provinces where the land is situated to acquire the land. So that in smaller cases the exception will cover the particular type of case which the hon. Baronet has in mind.

CLAUSE 180.—(Finance of the Railway Authority.)

The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth
(Sir H. Croft) desire to press opposition to any of the Clauses up to 186?

Sir H. CROFT: Not necessarily opposition, but I want to ask a question on Clause 181.

The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me on which Clauses he wishes to raise questions?

Sir H. CROFT: I wish to raise points on Clauses 181 and 182.

CLAUSE 181.—(Provisions as to certain obligations of the Railway Authority.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.39 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: In Sub-section (1) it says:
Equivalent to the amount of moneys provided
at the present time. I only want to ask if it is clear from this that there will be no payment exceeding the 1 per cent. which is at present a first charge, generally on the profits of the railways, and, for the protection of shareholders, I was wondering whether the hon. Gentleman can tell me that this is quite clear and that conditions in future will be no more onerous than they are at the present time?

Mr. BUTLER: I think that as regards the second point, the answer to the hon. and gallant Member is, "Yes," and, as regards the first point, I do not see the words "at the present time" in the Clause which the hon. and gallant Member quoted.

Sir H. CROFT: The actual words are:
Equivalent to the amount of the moneys provided whether before or after the passing of this Act
which I presume refers to the present time?

Mr. BUTLER: Yes, but I do not think that the hon. and gallant member has any reason to be disturbed by the phraseology here.

CLAUSE 182.—(Investment of Funds.)

8.40 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: The Clause reads:
Subject to such conditions, if any, as may be prescribed by the Federal Government, the Authority may from time to time invest any moneys in the railway fund or any provident fund which are not, for the time being required to meet expenses properly defrayable out of that fund, and may, subjects as aforesaid, from time to time transfer and realise investments made by them.
I only wanted to ask here if there is no possiblity of moneys which are standing to the credit of the railways being used in order to defray national deficits in any other direction? The reason I ask this is because hon. Gentlemen will remember that in the case of Ceylon, when there was a serious Budget deficit, the Governor sanctioned the withdrawal of funds which were really reserves and for railway renewals, in order to use such funds to meet a national deficit in other directions, and I want to hear whether that is quite impossible under this proposal?

Mr. BUTLER: The hon. and gallant Member may be reassured that the answer in Clause 182 is, "No," and that the money of the railway authority will be for the purposes of the railway authority.

Clauses 183 to 186 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 187.—(Provisions for settlement of questions arising between the Railway Authority and the owners of railways in Indian States.)

The CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment on the Order Paper—in page 109, line 12, to leave out from "tribunal," to end of the Sub-section—but in view of the fact, as the Committee are aware, that the Government propose that this Clause should be omitted, I do not propose to call the Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: No, I cannot take that. I have put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.43 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: From what the Secretary of State told us earlier in the evening, I gathered that the Clause was going to cover two points to extend the scope to deal first with disputes, whether concerning the Princes or British India, and, secondly, with the appointment of a permanent chairman and a panel of six members.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that we must not discuss the proposed new Clause. When the proposals of the new Clause were indicated, the hon. and gallant Baronet may remember that I said that the Clause must not be discussed, and certainly it must not be discussed here. The only question at the moment is whether the Clause as printed in the Bill shall stand part or not.

Sir H. CROFT: I do not want to press the Government on the Withdrawal of this Clause, but I must state at this point that it does not appear to me that the points which were outlined—and I know we cannot ask for any, further explanation from the Under-Secretary—in any way cover the main objection of the Princes in the White Paper. I gather that we shall have a full opportunity of discussing this question at a later period in the Bill and I can only say that, unless the position is satisfactorily explained, we shall certainly have to oppose the new Clause.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Clause 188 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 189.—(Official directors of Indian railway companies.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.46 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: Will the directorates be composed of such representation as will correspond to the amount of capital held by British nationals? It is only to make sure that His Majesty's Government are watching that point very carefully that I raise it. On other occasions, I have mentioned that while we are doing everything in our power in order to secure the future interests of Indians, British interests in India in this connection have, I am afraid, been very largely overlooked. Can the Under-Secretary give me an assurance on this question, in view of
the very large holdings of British nationals in Indian railways?

8.47 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: This particular Clause applies to guaranteed railway companies, in which there is one official director on the board, appointed by the Governor-General in his discretion. The particular point of view which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind does not apply to the extent that he believes in this particular Clause, which is of a rather limited nature.

CLAUSE 190.—(Establishment and constitution of Federal Court.)

8.48 p.m.

Mr. GALBRAITH: I beg to move, in page 110, line 21, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the chief justice shall be a barrister of England or Northern Ireland of at least 15 years standing, or a member of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland of at least 15 years standing.
This manuscript Amendment raises a question which lies in very small corn-pass but which involves a question of considerable principle. Its object is to see that no one shall, be appointed chief justice of the Federal Court which is going to be set up unless he is a person who has had adequate legal training and experience to fit him for the office. The Federal Constitution is a matter of experiment and great importance and on the question whether the Federal Constitution succeeds or not the Federal Court will play a very important part. May I remind the Committee of what is said in regard to this matter in paragraph 322 of the Select Committee's Report:
A Federal Court is an essential element in a Federal Constitution. It is at once the interpreter and guardian of the Constitution and a tribunal for the determination of disputes between the constituent units of the Federation.
One has only to look—I will not read them—at Clauses 194, 195, 196 and 204 to see what important points will probably arise to be determined by the Federal Court. I would refer particularly to Clause 204 and to the very important jurisdiction which is to be conferred on the Federal Court in regard to the making of rules of court and determining the procedure which shall be followed in the Federal Court.
The object of the Amendment is to see, as I have said, that no one shall be appointed to this very important post unless he has proper legal qualifications. Let me explain the Amendment, because without some explanation the object may be misinterpreted. I want to make it perfectly plain that the term "barrister of England" includes not only English people but also a large number of Indians. Those who are acquainted with the administration of the affairs of the Inns of Court will know that by far the larger percentage of people who are now admitted to the Bar in this country are our Indian fellow subjects. On many occasions it is true to say that something like 75 per cent. or a larger percentage of those who are called by the different Inns of Court are our Indian fellow subjects. In regard to the position of chief justice, for the last 150 years it has been provided, and the rule has invariably been, that only people can be appointed to the most important posts of chief justice of the Supreme Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras who are barristers of experience.
The Bill proposes that two classes of persons who do not possess the qualifications which have been found necessary and which have worked so well for the last 150 years are to be made eligible; first of all members of the Indian Civil Service, and, secondly, as provided in Sub-section (3, c), gentlemen who have been pleaders for at least ten years of a High Court in British India or in a Federated State. As regards the members of the Indian Civil Service, I should be the last person to suggest that members of the Indian Civil Service do not discharge the judicial responsibilities which are imposed upon them with admirable success and the greatest efficiency. There are obviously a large number of questions, for instance, questions relating, as is pointed out in the report of the Select Committee, to native customs and native habits as regards which members of the Indian Civil Service who carry out judicial duties have very special means of knowledge. But it must be remembered that a member of the Indian Civil Service usually has no legal training or qualification in the ordinary sense, and therefore he is obviously not a fit and proper person, or at any rate not the best kind of person,
to be appointed to the supremely important office of Chief Justice of the Federal Court, who will have to decide most important questions between one Province and another; questions involving the consideration of matters of pure law.
With regard to the pleaders mentioned in Sub-section (3, c), they are persons who no doubt act as advocates with great success, but in most cases they have not had proper or sufficient legal training for the position in question. What I am asking the Committee to accede to is that the practice which has been followed in regard to the Chief Justices in the three courts which I mentioned for 150 years should be adopted, and that barristers whether they be English or Indian should alone be appointed Chief Justice of the Federal Court. The Amendment is moved at the request of a large number of persons in this country and in India, Englishmen and Indians, who are disturbed at the prospect that there may be appointed to this important office people who have not the highest professional qualifications. Let me read some of the representations which have been made to the General Council of the Bar in this country by the Calcutta Bar Association and the Incorporated Law Society of Calcutta. The representations refer also to the appointment of native pleaders. They say:
They are opposed to the proposal that Indian civil service judges should be eligible for permanent appointment as chief justices—(1) because maintenance of the best legal traditions, in the interest of which the Joint Select Committee themselves recommend the recruitment of some judges for the Bars of the United Kingdom, is most essential on the part of the Chief Justice; (2) because it is fundamentally unsound that the head of the supreme Judiciary of a country may be not a lawyer at all and without any legal education, training or tradition; (3) because apart from his judicial work, in the matter of framing rules and circular orders for the subordinate judiciary, certain qualities are required of the Chief Justice which members of the Bar, trained in the profession, naturally profess in a larger measure than any layman, however experienced; (4) because the appointment of a civil service judge to the office of Chief Justice would impair public confidence in the High Court, both on account of his lack of legal training and his service associations with the executive.
I move this Amendment because of the desire that to this supremely important post only persons should be appointed
who are in every way qualified to carry out the duties properly.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. SPENS: I desire to support the Amendment. As the Bill is drafted, the appointment of judges, including the Chief Justice, is by His Majesty by Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual; and it may be said that it is inconceivable, in these circumstances, that anybody except a fully qualified lawyer would be appointed to the position of Chief Justice of the Federation. The Bill is for all time or for a substantial portion of time to come, and no one can possibly foresee what may be the future. In all federations the federal court has sooner or later to stand up to encroachments on the part of the executive. I do not know a single instance on this side of the Atlantic or within the Empire where the federal court has not had to make a stand against the executive. The possibility that the Executive in this country, in sympathy with the Executive in India, may be in a position in which they can appoint someone other than a lawyer to these important offices is bound to end in the protection for the subject, which the establishment of these federal courts is intended to give, becoming perfectly worthless to the subject. I submit that in the interests of the liberty of the subject it should be utterly impossible at any future time for the Executive, either in this country or in India, to be able to put the subject in that position. It may seem to be a theoretical Amendment, but I hope the Government will be able to see their way to accept the proposal, which has behind it the opinion of many people in India as well as the General Council of the Bar in this country, and thus make it impossible for anything of the nature to which I have referred to occur in the future.

9 p.m.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: The Amendment has been proposed so ably that I can add nothing to what has been said, but, as a member of the Bar, I wish to add my weight to the appeal that has been made. For 150 years Chief Justices in India have been people who have been trained barristers, and no reason has been given why there should be a change in this respect now.

9.1 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: With everything that the hon. and learned Member for East Surrey (Mr. Galbraith) and other speakers have said with regard to the importance of the Federal Court I need hardly say that I absolutely and whole-heartedly agree. It would be impossible to overstate the importance of the Federal Court in the development of this Constitution. But when you are considering appointments to a court the first and chief thing is not perhaps so much the minimum qualifications as the method of appointment. That is why it is proposed that the members of the Federal Court, including the Chief Justice, shall be appointed by His Majesty, which of course means on the advice of the Secretary of State and the Ministry in this country, who will be held responsible to this House for any advice they give. That in our view is really the important thing. Whatever qualifications you put in, unless the appointing authority takes the trouble to appoint the best men, then no minimum qualifications will avail at all. At the same time, we are impressed by what has been said as to the fact that this Federal Court will be dealing, almost exclusively, with what may be called pure points of law, of great difficulty.
Nothing that I am going to say with regard to this Amendment must be taken as in any way depreciating the very valuable work that has been done by judges of the Indian Civil Service to-day in the High Court, and I was a little surprised at a phrase used by the hon. and learned Member for East Surrey when he spoke of Indian Civil Service judges of the High Court as men who have not had adequate training or legal experience. He said that he wanted by his Amendment to exclude men who had not had adequate training and legal experience, and his words might have been understood to mean that he wanted to exclude Civil Service judges.

Mr. GALBRAITH: If I unfortunately said so I went further than I intended.

9.5 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is right to remind the Committee, when we are considering a proposal to make special legal qualifications necessary for this post, that the judges of the Indian Civil Service start judicial work at the very outset of their careers, and that
before they can be appointed to a High Court they have been for some 10 or 12 years in very important judicial positions. It is really untrue to say that men who have had that experience have not had a very considerable legal training, and indeed I might say more legal training than some barristers of 15 years experience have the good fortune to get. But, as I say, as this court will have to deal almost exclusively with pure points of law there is a great deal to be said for the contention that the judge should be a person of legal training in the ordinary sense.
Now I pass to the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, which we cannot accept. He proposed that in addition to excluding the Indian Civil Service judges we should exclude those who under sub-section (3, c) have been for 10 years pleaders in a High Court in British India or in a Federated State. I am not sure whether my hon. and learned Friend realises the category of persons that he would exclude. They have all taken a good legal degree. They have a period of training such as we have in this country and they have to pass a very stiff examination. I might mention men so well known as Sir Dinsha Mulla, who ended his career as a Privy Councillor; and Sir Jamsetzi Kanga. They were men who were called in India.
Accepting the principle that the Chief Justice of this court should be a man of what I should call normal legal training, who has been called to the Bar in the ordinary way, we think it would be quite wrong to draw the suggested distinction between those Indians who came over to this country and were called to the Bar here, and those who were called in their own country. Indeed I think it is the experience of those who are familiar with these matters, that without attempting to draw invidious distinctions at any rate many of those called in India show just as much capacity as, and in individual cases may show more capacity than, those who happen to come over to this country and are called here. Therefore, I say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that he will consider introducing words which will make it clear that the Chief Justice of this court should be a person who was either a barrister, an advocate or a pleader. We appreciate the force of the desire for
the successful working of the court which is behind these suggestions, but we cannot accept a suggestion which would qualify an Indian who happened to come over to London to be called and would disqualify those who had been called in their own country.

Mr. GALBRAITH: After the sympathetic reply of my hon. and learned Friend I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. BAILEY: I beg to move, in page 111, line 7, to leave out "ten" and to insert "fifteen."
The object of this Amendment is to make the qualifying period for the appointment of judges to the Federal Court 15 years instead of 10. I do not think that the figure of 15 years is unreasonable, because if we consider the judicial practice in this country—I am speaking without having gone into the matter, but from my own recollection—I do not think we ever get a man appointed a judge of the High Court who has not been a member of the English Bar for 15 years. I do not know whether the learned Solicitor-General can quote an instance of a man so appointed, but I think the youngest of those appointed have been members of the Bar for well over 20 years. When you are starting a judicial system which is to have work of the utmost importance to do, at least the same period of experience should have been acquired in India as that which is normally acquired in this country before an appointment is made.

9.11 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I intervene at once and I hope we may not take very long over this point. I agree with my hon. Friend that in most cases judges are unlikely to be appointed when they have had less than 15 years experience. The figure 10 is the figure for our own High Court judges in this country, and we suggest that that would be the right figure to adhere to for the ordinary members of the court. You may get the case of a man called to the Bar late in life, who has made a very rapid advance in his profession and would be quite qualified to fill one of these positions. We do not want to cut him out.
The real safeguard is in the common sense of the appointing authority. My right hon. Friend would certainly consider whether in the case of the Chief Justice we might not adopt the figure of 15 years, so as to ensure getting a man with the requisite experience and qualification.

Sir H. CROFT: Do I understand that both these considerations are to be taken separately and that there is a definite suggestion that the Secretary of State will alter this time period?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes, for the Chief Justice, but we shall stick to the period of 10 years for judges other than the Chief Justice.

Sir H. CROFT: Is it not a fact that here we have a situation very different from that in this country Is it not important that you should have men of the greatest experience when you are setting up this new judicial system in India, and would it not be wiser to err in this case in the direction of experience rather than keep to the low figure? Could not we have the same reconsideration of this proposal as in the case of the Chief Justice?

9.14 p.m.

Major HILLS: I would agree with the Mover of the Amendment if I thought that age was synonymous with efficiency, but I would remind the Committee that the tendency of modern times in this country is to appoint younger judges. If there is a good man available, even though he has only been a barrister for a period of 10 years, I think there ought to be a chance of appointing him. Do not rule out an able man because he is young. It is not always experience that counts in these matters. A great lawyer is made by other things than experience. If there is a competent authority making the appointment we ought not to limit their field of choice in the manner proposed.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: My right hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken is, if he will allow me to say so, older than I am.

Major HILLS: A good deal. But I do not say that I am wiser.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am grateful to him, as one who is among the seniors,
for taking the view that we ought to encourage young men, and I am not going to dissent from that as a general proposition. If you want efficient soldiers, whether generals or privates, you want young men. Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, all achieved their greatest works before they had attained the age of 30. But when it comes to the appointment of judges, I honestly think that other considerations must apply. I think the more experience they have the better, provided they are not senile—and it is amazing how few of our judges seem to suffer from the effects of age. It must be that the law is a very healthy occupation, because, apparently, they never become senile. It has always seemed to me, indeed, that lawyers resemble port and that the longer they mature the better they are. I hope the Solicitor-General will give earnest consideration to the proposal that 15 years should be the qualifying period.

Mr. BAILEY: In view of the very fair and reasonable statement of the Solicitor-General I desire to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

9.18 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I have not ventured to intervene in the discussion on the somewhat abstruse matters which have been under consideration in connection with this Clause and I have felt the less inclined to intervene on observing the extraordinary co-operation which has been shown among the legal Members of this Committee. I noticed that the Solicitor-General gave an undertaking to consider a certain manuscript Amendment moved from the opposite side. I do not know whether we shall be able to agree with that proposal or not until it appears on the Order Paper, but if we allowed the matter to pass now in silence we might be told afterwards that we had conceded the point by implication. May I say, therefore, that we shall consider this matter at leisure and determine what action we are going to take later.

Clauses 191 to 193 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 194.—(Original jurisdiction, of Federal Court.)

The CHAIRMAN: I think the Amendment to this Clause in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) and that in the name of the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Emmott) and other hon. Members might be taken in one discussion with, if necessary, separate Divisions on each.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. SPENS: I beg to move, in page 112, line 11, after "jurisdiction," to insert:
in any matter in which the Federation or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Federation is a party or.
I move this Amendment in order to obtain some explanation as to what the original jurisdiction of the Federal Court is to be. On reading the Clause it would appear at first sight that the original jursidiction of the Court is to be confined to disputes between any two or more of the following parties, namely, the Federation, any of the Provinces or any of the Federated States. By Subsection (2) it should be noted the only remedy which in this original jurisdiction the Federal Court can give to a party who comes before it is a declaratory judgment. Therefore, it would appear that the Federal Court cannot entertain any suit brought before it by a subject or any suit brought before it by the Federation or an officer of the Federation against a subject. Nor can it, apparently, give any redress other than a declaratory judgment. Accordingly, it seems, no mandamus can go, no injunction can go, no prohibition can go and apparently, not even the freedom of the subject can be affirmed. If one looks at some of the other Clauses of the Bill such as Clause 174 one sees that they obviously envisage actions brought against the Federation.
Where there is a Federal Central Legislature and a number of Provincial Legislatures, disputes will obviously arise in which the subject will claim that some Measure passed by the Federal Central Legislature has gone beyond its powers and that he is hurt by that legislation or some provision in it. The subject will desire to bring an action against the Federation for the purpose of obtaining a declaration as to whether or not such legislation or a particular provision in
such legislation is intra vires the Federation or not. If he finds that his property or personal liberty is infringed by such legislation, there must be some means by which he can challenge the Federation or the officer of the Federation who is enforcing that legislation. Therefore, I propose to insert the words of the Amendment which are taken from the Section of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act by which original jurisdiction is given to the Federal Court in Australia in all disputes between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State, or in which the Commonwealth or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth is a party and so forth.
I notice that Clause 194 of this Bill is introduced by the words "Subject to the provisions of this Act." It may be that those words do somehow or other give original jurisdiction to the Federal Court in suits in which the Federation is suing the subject or in which the subject is suing the Federation or the officer of the Federation. But as the Clause is worded at present and in view of the provisions of Sub-section (2) it seems to me that the original jurisdiction of the Federal Court is limited to disputes between the Federation and the States or the Provinces, and that it is not in a position to entertain actions brought by the subject against the Federation or the officer of the Federation. I cannot imagine that it is contemplated that a subject who feels himself wronged by legislation of the Federation or an action of its officer should have to take action in any court other than the Federal Court. I cannot imagine that if some legislation of the Federation is alleged to be ultra vires a series of actions would have to be started against the Federation in the 11 different high courts of the 11 different Provinces. Such a course would only lead to chaotic results. There will be chaos until one or other of them gets the matter settled by appeal to the Federal High Court. It seems to me that in that sort of case it must be essential that the subject can go straight, and at once, to the Federal High Court in order to get the matter put right, and to get a decision which will be binding throughout India, at the earliest possible moment.
Nothing I have said regarding this point affects what I apprehend is the position that in suits between the Federation and States, and between the States and Provinces, and so forth, the only remedy which the Federal High Court ought to give should be a declaratory judgment. I quite understand it is essential that that remedy should be confined to these subjects which are dealt with in Clause 194. But it does seem to me that in other suits between a subject and Federation the ordinary remedy of the High Court ought to be open to the Federal Court in India. From every point of view it is desirable that those who consider themselves wronged through legislation of the Federation being ultra vires, or through the action of Federal officials being ultra vires, ought to be able to go straight to the Federal High Court and have a decision given on these disputes with the least possible delay.

9.27 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: In drafting this clause we have followed the recommendation of the Joint select Committee and I hope the Committee will think we have done that with very good reason my hon. and learned friend's Amendment, in effect would say that the Federal Court are to have original and I suppose exclusive jurisdiction in all cases in which the Federation is a party We have as he said passed Clauses which specifically deal with matter of suits being brought against the Provinces or the Federation. But there are many cases to-day in India—and there will continue to be such cases when this becomes law—in which private individuals have rights against and can sue the Federation. It would be most oppressive and inconvenient if any litigant who had a claim against the Federation—and it might be quite a small claim—had to go up from the far end of India to the central place where the Federal Court will sit to prosecute his claim. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that it would be regarded as the greatest possible injustice in India, and indeed I think it would have manifest and great inconveniences. It would seem quite unnecessary in what I may call ordinary cases.
But, my hon. and learned Friend says, you may get cases where there is some question as to whether legislation is or
is not ultra vires. We believe that the right and best procedure in that case is the procedure under the Bill. Let it go first to the local court. Let it be sifted and dealt with there; and let it go from there to the Federal Court, which is, after all, the final court of appeal in such cases. After all, it is an advantage in these very important matters to have them sifted twice instead of once. The possible difficulties and embarrassments which my hon. and learned Friend suggests, of 11 high courts all dealing with the matter, I cannot but think will be got over by the ordinary methods of common sense. Obviously, if there is a case in any Province which raises a real question as to whether a Statute is ultra vires or not, arrangements will be made to expedite the hearing and appeal of the first case in which that issue is raised; and other litigants in other Provinces will know that this case is going to the Federal Court and the decision can be awaited.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I ask how the litigant who is an ordinary subject can find money with which to go to the Appeal Court?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Amendment would compel him at the outset to do what is necessarily a very expensive thing. He would have to go to Delhi, and get a special counsel to travel all those hundreds or thousands of miles, to conduct his case at all. I was not dealing with the ordinary cases which do not involve a constitutional issue. I had pointed out that in those cases it was much more convenient to everybody that they should be tried in the local court. Then, my hon. and learned Friend was putting the case of some constitutional matters which would have to go to the Federal Court—matters in which there could be no question that some litigant or other would take it to the Federal Court. I am saying that in that case again we think the procedure in the Bill is better than the procedure proposed in the Amendment. Such a case will be dealt with in the ordinary way, first by the local court; and if there is any doubt about it, and it seems a proper case for appeal, it will be taken on appeal to the Federal Court, which will have the advantage of having in this difficult matter the judgment of the first court before it. For these reasons we believe
that the scheme of the Bill, under which original and exclusive jurisdiction is confined to disputes between units of the new Constitution, is better than the scheme proposed by my hon. and learned Friend.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. BAILEY: Arising out of the observations of the Solicitor-General, I wonder whether between now and the Report stage the Government might find it possible to consider the advisability of a compromise on this Clause. I think my hon. and learned Friend has shown quite clearly that to accept the Amendment in its present form would probably create greater hardships than the one it is attempting to alleviate, because it would mean that a great many disputes which would probably never come to the Federal Court if they were heard in the High Court first would impose a tremendous journey upon the litigant, which nobody wants to do. On the other hand, as my hon. and learned Friend has clearly shown, there is a certain number of cases of a constitutional character dealing purely with matters of law, and not with matters of fact, which ultimately would have to go to the Federal Court. I wonder whether he would consider the advisability of making it possible to have such cases tried by consent in the first instance by the Federal Court, where in the opinion of the High Court itself or of both parties such a course is desirable. I cannot help thinking that some arrangment of that kind would meet the substantial point of the Amendment, without creating the hardships which the Amendment in its present form would undoubtedly create by dragging a lot of cases to the Federal Court which would probably never get there at all otherwise.

9.36 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am grateful for the manner in which my hon. Friend has put his suggestion, and, of course, I will consider anything that he has said. It would not be right to say that I believe that his suggestion was a practicable one—I do not think it is—but I also would like to remind him that under Clause 203 of this Bill:
If at any time it appears to the Governor-General that a question of law has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance
that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Federal Court upon it, he may in his discretion refer the question to that court for consideration.
That is an important provision to bear in mind, and might meet some of the classes of case which my hon. Friend has in mind. With regard to his other suggestion, I do not want to delay the Committee, but I do not think it would be practicable, though, of course, I will consider what he said.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Under Clause 203 would it not require that a question of law should have arisen?

Amendment negatived.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. EMMOTT: I beg to move, in page 112, line 14, to leave out from "dispute," to the end of line 23, and to insert:
"concerns—

(a)the application or interpretation of this Act or any Order in Council made thereunder; or
(b)the determination of any rights and obligations arising under this Act or any such Order in Council; or
(c)any matter involving the interpretation of, or arising under, any agreement made between any of the parties after the commencement of this Act.

Provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to any such agreement—

(i)if the agreement otherwise expressly provides;
(ii)unless at the time of the making of such agreement an authenticated copy thereof is registered at the Federal Court."

Under the Clause any dispute between two or more of these parties, that is, the Federation, any of the Provinces, or any of the Federated States, is within the original jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
if and in so far as the dispute involves a matter of legal right.
I think I speak with accuracy when I say that the effect of my Amendment is to specify more particularly the extent of the original jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The words:
if and in so far as the dispute involves a matter of legal right
seem to me to lack precision: they might be said to cover almost any form of dispute, and they will involve endless litigation. The words which my Amendment seeks to substitute for the words in line 14 of the Clause are intended to specify par-
ticularly the extent of the original jurisdiction of the Federal Court, in the circumstances contemplated by the Clause. With regard to the proviso to my Amendment, it seems to me that uncertainty might arise, in such matters as customs, conventions, working agreements, and so on, as to whether they are or are not agreements importing the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, and these matters, we say, should be put out of the reach of doubt by the obligation to register the agreement at the Federal Court.

9.42 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. Friend criticised the words "a matter of legal right." We thought they were rather happy. They are certainly, we thought, better than "justiciable," which term sometimes occurs and causes grave doubt as to exactly what it means. After all, if the dispute does involve a matter of legal right, surely it is a proper dispute to take to the Federal Court, and we think they are very apt words for providing generally the category of disputes which should properly be taken to the Court. The idea behind this Clause is that if you have a dispute between two Provinces or between the Federation and a Province or a Federated State, it is desirable that that should not be litigated in the court of one of the disputing parties. If we did not have this provision, and if we accepted the Amendment, a dispute involving a matter of legal right could only be litigated in the High Court of the Province or of the State. It is largely a question of the parties involved, and for these reasons we think the arrangement in the Bill is better than that in the Amendment. With regard to agreements, we do not think there is any need for the proviso of my hon. Friend, as the Clause already covers that point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 195.—(Appellate jurisdiction of Federal Court in appeals from High Courts in British India.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

9.44 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May we have am explanation from the Government of the
purpose of this Clause? The learned Solicitor-General has shown himself ready to dispute all the issues raised on Clause 194, and perhaps he will take the opportunity of making a similar intervention on this Clause.

9.45 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This Clause deals with the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court and provides that if in a case in the High Court it appears that a substantial question of law involving an interpretation either of this Bill or any Order-in-Council made under it arises, there shall be a right of appeal to the Federal Court if the High Court certifies that such a question of law arises. The second part of the Clause says that a person can appeal on that ground once he has got his certificate. There may be other grounds in the case, and, if they are proper grounds for appeal, leave may be given.

Mr. CHURCHILL: On major questions of fact?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Clause says:
on any ground on which that party could have appealed without special leave to His Majesty in Council.
Subject to that, the Federal Court have a further discretion if they think there is a possible appellate matter. The main purpose of the Clause is to ensure that appeals which involve questions of the interpretation of the Constitution shall go to a higher court.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I take it that the matters that will be taken to appeal will be matters of substance, and not trivial matters involved within the scope of a purely technical legal decision.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. EMMOTT: I have an Amendment on the Paper which was not called, but the matter of which I should like to mention. I take it that I am correct in supposing that this Clause does not in any way affect the appeal that now lies, and will, I imagine, in future lie to His Majesty in Council from a High Court in British India, where no question of law as to the application or interpretation of this Act is involved?

9.49 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Nothing in the Clause affects the right of appeal to the Privy Council in cases outside the Clause. In cases that fall within the Clause, which involve matters of interpretation of the Constitution, parties will have to go to the Federal Court. There is a further right of appeal from the Federal Court to the Privy Council in a later Clause.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that in view of the explanation which has been given by the learned Solicitor-General, for which we are indebted to him, my hon. Friend may feel reassured in regard to the subject matter of his Amendment, that we might allow the Clause to pass without a Division.

CLAUSE 196.—(Power of Federal Legislature to enlarge appellate jurisdiction.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

9.51 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Could we be told why the sum fixed in this Clause is
not less than fifty thousand rupees or such other sum not less than fifteen thousand rupees as may be specified by the Act"?
These seem considerable sums when we remember that a vast number of the people of India are badly off. It is for the Conservative party, as mainly representing labour in this country, to see that the poor are not worse off in this respect than those who are well off. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will explain the basis on which these sums are fixed.

9.52 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The right of appeal from one court to another is not a privilege which the rich always particularly value. The amounts, which are only rough and ready, are a measure of the importance of the case. The figures are arbitrary, but the idea of an amount as a criterion for the right of appeal already exists in respect of appeals in India, and we think that these figures are the proper figures to put in the Clause.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Are they the same figures as exist to-day?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The figure to-day is 10,000 rupees.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We ought to dwell on this point a moment. I should really have thought that it was a matter that appealed enormously to the Opposition, for obviously, in this Clause we are laying down in the most naked and blatent terms that there is one law for the rich and another law for the poor. It does not at all follow that cases over 50,000 rupees are more important than cases under 50,000 rupees. It was a maxim in Roman times, and the great Augustus is stated to have said, that magistrates should always make a point of attending to the small cases, because the small cases revealed the life of the people who bore upon their shoulders the pressing weight, the necessarily inevitable pressing weight, of an elaborate social organisation. Why should the Committee be ready to pass in a casual manner a Clause such as this? Why are the representatives of Labour, the broad proletarian masses, dumb when these things come up? They seem to say, "It is a matter involving 50,000 rupees; what do we care for that? "It may be that a poor widow is asserting her right to live—rather difficult, I believe, in some cases in India. There may be a case of a humble agricultural labourer who has been paid a wage which does not give him even the daily subsistence which is necessary to support body and soul. "Oh, well," they say, "this is nothing." It may be some small tenant farmer, oppressed by some rich landlord, who has rack-rented him and ill treated him very much, taking perhaps the whole value of his poor holding, with all the improvements which he has put into it. That is not a matter of 10,000 rupees, let alone 50,000 rupees.
I am not saying that some arrangement of this kind may not be necessary. There is a maxim, De minimis non curat lex, but I have never, known that de minimis was regarded as having a pecuniary standard, or that there was any idea that wealth and wealth alone is to be the test by which the course of justice is to be regulated. I know that this may easily strike a rather unexpected and perhaps uncomfortable chord in the breast of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Among the hierarchy of the
law there are wealthy and famous and skilful advocates, and a litigant does get very well attended to when such a one puts his case. There are a lot of people who might manage to put a case effectively, and it would go through in the ordinary way, but with nothing like the careful and considerate attention to detail with which it is handled when eminent K.Cs. appear on one side or the other. That may be one of the practices which grow up irresistibly in the ordinary workings of a complicated civilisation, but there is all the difference between that and putting principles into the cold lead of an Act of Parliament. I am bound to say that I think this is a little characteristic—though I am sorry to have to say so—of the kind of outlook and view, and temper and touch and mood in which this Bill has been shaped and framed by His Majesty's Government. There is nothing like a careful procedure reserved for the appeals, the cries for justice, which arise from people whose case does not involve 50,000 rupees, none of the elaborate precautions which are available in cases above that mystic figure.
How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrive at his figure of 50,000 rupees? The Attorney-General, in an audible aside which I think we may fairly say has become the common property of the Committee, mentioned that the present figure was 10,000 rupees. Now it has to be 50,000 rupees before a man can get the full and careful consideration of the courts. That is very typical of the Bill; it is the exact measure of the Bill. In the future it is to be five times as difficult for poor people to get their affairs attended to in India as it was before this Bill was passed. I wish I had a legal training which would enable me to do justice to these matters, but, lacking that, I must study the text of the Bill as best I can in bringing these points forward. It is a bad thing for a great Empire when it definitely draws the line in this cold, cynical and brutal manner between the rich and the poor, especially in a population which, as my hon. Friend has reminded us, is miserably poor, brushing aside the poor and selecting only the affairs of the wealthy, of the Ahmedabad millowners, the wealthy corporations of Bombay, the enormous landowners and others. I think something
should be done to make it clear that money is not to be the test. I am delighted to hear my right hon. and gallant Friend laughing, because, generally speaking, he seems to be oppressed by a melancholy disposition.

Major HILLS: Surely I am allowed to laugh if I am amused.

Mr. CHURCHILL: And surely I am allowed to derive a momentary and transient personal satisfaction at having lifted the clouds of depression from my right hon. and gallant Friend. But I will return to the topic before us. I press the point no further except to proclaim the moral, which is very clear and rather ugly. But I should like the learned Solicitor-General, or the Attorney-General if he is disposed to do so—because there is nothing like going to Number 1 in these matters— when he is replying and freeing our minds from the anxiety we have that a sordid discrimination is being established on the face of our Statute Book, to deal with Sub-section (2). As far as I can make out, though here I must plead my lay disqualification, this Subsection enables the Federal Legislature, by passing some law, to withhold appeal to His Majesty in Council in an enormous class of civil cases in India. If I am wrong I should like to be corrected, but it seems to me that that can be the only purpose of that Sub-section. Of course, one does not want to have the Privy Council here oppressed by an immense volume of litigation coming across the Indian Ocean and, after a long process both of time and space, arriving to be decided here; but I happen to know that the right of appeal to the Privy Council is deeply valued by our Indian fellow subjects. Till they have been taught worse manners by their new masters they will, no doubt, greatly value the power of appealing to what is the most august Court that has ever been in existence in modern times so far as justice between man and man is concerned.
I remember the late Lord Haldane, who was a colleague of the Leader of the Opposition, and one who was always treated with great respect, telling the story of how men were found at sacrifice in a remote village of India. It was not a human sacrifice; they were sacrificing the ordinary domestic animals, which were valuable to them; but they were sacrificing them to the god called Privy
Council, which had reached out an arm across the ocean and had given back to the humble dwellers of the village land which had been wrongfully taken from them. I am alarmed by both Sub-sections (1) and (2) of this Clause. The first appears, as far as I can see, though I await an explanation, to draw this property qualification in a manner more crude and more barefaced than I have ever known before, and the second seems to authorise and even to encourage the Federal Legislature to bar whole classes of appeals to the Privy Council in certain circumstances. I shall be glad to have these doubts removed by the legal exposition of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General, but what will not be removed by their exposition, however admirable it may be, is that sense which I have, and which I think the Committee has already derived, that the language of this Statute is contrary to the entire principles upon which British civilisation has been built up, and, still more, British administration of Eastern lands has been built up, and that as it stands it is a blot and a defacement upon the statute law of Great Britain.

10.2 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My right hon. Friend has spoken of the outlook, temper, touch and mood in which this Bill has been drafted and put forward. It would be impertinent for me to suggesI that it was in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman's outlook, temper, touch and mood in advancing an argument which a further perusal of about a further half-an-inch of the Clause would have dispelled and shown to be quite erroneous. The basis of his argument was that this Clause provided a financial test, and a financial test alone. That is not true as a reference to paragraph (b) shows. When I was replying earlier to a specific question put by my hon. Friends opposite as to why certain figures appeared at all, I replied that figures had been, and indeed were, a test of a case. If a case involves a large sum of money it is obviously a case of importance to litigants. It is also true to say that cases which involve only small sums of money are much better settled in one court without two or more rights of appeal. That is in the interest of all. It is better to have justice promptly administered
in one court rather than to be dragged from one court to another. I do not think anybody need be shocked at the fact that a sum of money is in issue as a convenient rough-and-ready test. If the case of an oppressed widow is thought to be one in the discretion of the courts for an appeal, it can be allowed under paragraph (b). I think that really answers the argument my right hon. Friend advanced.
With regard to Sub-section (2), the Federal Legislature can give a right of appeal in certain classes of cases from the High Court to the Federal Court. Obviously if you do that you cannot have a double right of appeal. One party cannot be going to the Federal Court and also to the Privy Council in the same class of case. The right of appeal to the Privy Council is safeguarded to this extent. If my right hon. Friend will look at Clause 198 he will see
An appeal may be brought to His Majesty in Council from a decision of the Federal Court by leave of the Federal Court or of His Majesty in Council.
At present in a certain class of case there is an appeal as of right from the High Court. That appeal would he to the Federal Court, and the further appeal from the Federal Court to the Privy Council would be by leave either of the Federal Court itself or of the Privy Council over here. I think the Committee can rest satisfied that in the event that it is right that there should be a further right of appeal to the Judicial Committee over here, the Judicial Committee would exercise the absolute discretion they have to hear it.

10.10 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: In view of the explanation of the learned Solicitor-General I would like to ask whether the net result is not this: Whereas at present in the cases contemplated in this Clause the procedure is the hearing in the original court; an appeal to the High Court or a corresponding court from the Court of Appeal; and then an appeal to the Privy Council, will not the general result now be that in cases of the same magnitude there would be three appeals—an appeal to the High Court from the Court of Appeal, an appeal from that court to the Supreme or Federal Court in India, and by leave a further appeal to the Privy Council? In view of the fact that
many of the cases are very small in India—there is no question that taking them at large the people of India are more inclined to litigation, and always have been from the days of the old East India Company, than the people of this country, as they are less afraid of the law and like it better than we do, is not the net result of these two Clauses to put still more money into the pockets of the lawyers and to take still more money out of the pockets of the unfortunate litigants, or the people who think that the law is fun, and find that it very likely ruins them before they have done with it?
If that be so, why is this new procedure introduced? Where are they more likely to get justice from any court in the world than from the Privy Council? Why is it more expensive to bring an appeal to the Supreme Court or Federal Court in India, which may be situated almost as many miles from the source of the litigation, and the court of trial as it is from India to this country and consequently quite as expensive a procedure? A really litigious person may well be prepared to go to the extreme limits of appeal allowed by law. It is not a question of the poor widow with her one court, but whether the real result of the new proposals is not to make the law in India still more expensive than it is and pour still more into the pockets of the advocates in India, be they Indians or Europeans. I hope the Solicitor-General will answer that question. Is this a simplification of appeal, or is it a complication of appeal? It seems to me quite clear that it is making it still more complicated and costly than it is to-day.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: Will there be any poor persons' procedure on appeal?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am informed that there is procedure for assisting poor persons and that this procedure applies up to the Privy Council. With regard to the question by the hon. Baronet, this is only a permissive Clause. It is obvious there may be grounds which make the Legislature think it reasonable and satisfactory to have an appeal court in certain classes of cases.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think the learned Solicitor-General made us a very full
answer, and that on Sub-section (2) his answer, seeing that I have not the necessary training in these matters, was a good one. As far as I could understand it, what he told us was that if a litigant appealed from the High Court to the Federal Court he cannot at the same time appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That would appear quite reasonable. He cannot appeal to both directly. He can appeal from the High Court to the Federal, and thereafter to the Privy Council. I will not take this point any further. So far as the money bar is concerned, I am not at all satisfied why, when 10,000 rupees have hitherto been the limit, 50,000 should now be the limit. A reply has been elicited from the Solicitor-General which greatly comforts us. It is vitally important that in human issues of great concern, however small may be the financial sum involved, the case should be capable of being brought before the tribunal. I gather that that is so, and that it is a procedure which in a test case may be invoked, and that persons who never dreamed of possessing a tithe of 50,000 rupees can appeal and receive justice.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The question of poor persons' appeal should be properly safeguarded in the Bill. Nothing is more vital than to remember—

The CHAIRMAN: It is clear that this is not in the Clause. The question which was put to the Solicitor-General has been answered, and we cannot go into it any further.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Obviously if it is not in the Clause we cannot deal with it. The Committee are greatly concerned, and I hope that the Government will see that there is adequate protection. I hope that that is a fair question.

The CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That Clauses 197 to 203 stand part of the Bill."

Viscount WOLMER: I have a question on Clause 200. Will you be so good as to put the question "That Clause 200 stand part of the Bill," because I want to raise my Question?

The CHAIRMAN: No notice has been given of opposition to this Clause, so I was entitled to include it in a block under the Resolution of the House.

Viscount WOLMER: Surely I am entitled to ask a question?

The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord should have given notice of opposition.

Viscount WOLMER: I give notice now that I beg to raise a Question on Clause 200.

The CHAIRMAN: It is well known that we have a special order of the House. The Noble Lord knows that notice has to be put down. I understand that he wishes to raise a point upon Clause 200, and I will permit him to do so.

Viscount WOLMER: On Clauses 200, 201 and 202.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clauses 197 to 199 stand part of the Bill."

10.19 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I, on that point of Order, ask if you can give your guidance on the following point? I understand that where there are no Amendments to Clauses, the Clauses will be put in groups. That was part of the arrangement which was decided upon, with general agreement. I was under the impression that where there was any Amendment, the Clause would be called, whereas it appears that an Amendment may be put down to a Clause, you may decide not to take it and, therefore, rule that there is no Amendment to that Clause. De we understand that, in the event of your not deciding to take an Amendment on a particular Clause, you will treat it as one of the Clauses to which no Amendment has been moved? If that be so, the remedy is very simple, to put down Amendments to leave out every Clause in the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: I shall have to consider the point later. The only Amendment down to Clauses 197, 198 and 199 are Amendments which are out of order. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is no Amendment in that case. I will consider the right hon. Gentleman's quesand perhaps the rather more doubtful
points in regard to an Amendment which is not to be selected.

CLAUSE 200.—(Enforcement of decrees and orders of Federal Court.)

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.20 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: My only reason for not putting down an Amendment to reject this Clause was that I noticed that there was an Amendment already down to the Clause, and I thought, therefore, that at any rate the question, "That the Clause stand part" would be put to the Committee. If an Amendment which you have not selected does not ensure that question being put to the Committee, then, as my right hon. Friend has said, we can, as long as we know, take care by putting down an Amendment to reject the Clause.
I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that Clauses 200, 201, and 202 are all connected on a vitally important matter, and each of them raises a perfectly simple issue. I do not propose to discuss them together, because there is a separate issue raised on each; but each of them deals with the fundamental question of the relation of the States to the Federation. When I read the debate, circulated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), which the Indian Princes held on the proposals of the Government, I realised the importance of these three Clauses.
Clause 200 gives the Federal Court power to make an Order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of court in any part of the Federation, including any federated State. I want to ask the Government, in the first place, whether they have received any representation from the Princes in regard to Clause 200, because I would like to give them notice that this question becomes of more importance in the case of Clause 201, and especially Clause 202. This power seems to be in conflict with what the Princes laid down as one of the maxims which have guided the whole of their actions, namely, that their internal autonomy should be absolutely uninterfered with by
the Constitution Act. How can it be said that any State is preserving its internal independence and autonomy—my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the phrase used by their Highnesses was "internal independence and autonomy"— if the Federal Court can order the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of court? That enables the Court to send right into a State, to brush aside the authority of the Maharaja and the resident, and to exercise its authority as if that State were part of British India.
The point that occurs to me is that in some of these cases the Princes themselves may be involved. I have heard of cases in the past—not in recent years, but not so very long ago—where Indian Princes have been held to be beyond the jurisdiction of English Courts in England on the ground that they were independent sovereigns. Under this Clause even the Prince himself might be involved. It appears that the Federal Court might require the attendance of any person. Even the Prince himself might be summoned to attend before the Federal Court. He might be summoned as a witness, and if he declined, I take it that he would be guilty of contempt of court. I am quite certain that all these points have been thought out by the Government and certainly must have been faced by the legal advisers to the Princes, but it reads to a layman as if the status of independent sovereignty, which the Princes have hitherto enjoyed is completely destroyed by this Clause. I should also like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether a Prince of an Indian Federated State would still be outside the jurisdiction of an English court of law on the ground that he was an independent sovereign and within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court on the ground that he was a member of the Federation. The Committee and everybody concerned should know exactly the effect of these three Clauses. The principle is fully raised on the same narrow point in Clause 200 on the question of the production of documents and punishment for contempt of court.

10.27 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I hope that my Noble Friend will forgive me saying that I think he has a little misapprehended the meaning intended. The Clause provides that all authorities, civil and judicial, shall act in aid of the Federal Court. In the first place, I would remind him that the Federal Court is not a British India court, but is as much a court of the Princes as of British India. My Noble Friend has rather assumed that when the Federal Court, under Sub-section (2), makes an order for the discovery or production of any document or for contempt by witnesses it is the Federal Court that will enforce the order in any State in which the order may come to be enforced. My Noble Friend is in error on that point. If he will read a little more carefully the closing lines of the Sub-section he will see that it is merely giving effect to that which is stated to have general application in Sub-section (1), and the order of the Federal Court
shall be enforceable by all courts…of any Federated State as if they were orders duly made by the highest court exercising civil or criminal jurisdiction, as the case may be, in that part.
The orders will be enforced by the State Court in the Princes' States. Therefore, there is no question, even of the Federal Court, which as I pointed out is the Princes' own court in a manner of speaking, enforcing its order. I do not think that any Princes could possibly object to that, and indeed it is a method which will secure the proper recognition of the sovereignty of the Princes. My Noble Friend asked the question as to whether a Prince, being recognised as a sovereign in a British court and exempt from jurisdiction, will be exempt from jurisdiction in the Federal Court? I am not sure that I really understand what my Noble Friend means by that question. Perhaps the explanation which I have given as to the closing lines of Sub-section (2) really disposes of his question. There is no issue as to the Federal Court bringing the Princes under its jurisdiction at all. It is merely a question as to an order of the Federal Court which is necessary for its administration of justice being enforced by a Prince's own court in his own State.

10.30 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: I am afraid that the Attorney-General has not quite cleared up my difficulty. Let me take a concrete case. Suppose a British subject or anyone resident within the Federation had an action against a Prince for more than 50,000 rupees. Such actions have occurred in England in the past and it has always been held that a suit could not lie against a Prince because he was a Sovereign Power. The British Courts, I think I am right in saying, have refused to entertain a suit on the ground that it was brought against a Sovereign Prince. My question to the Attorney-General is this: would a suit of that sort be within the competence of the Federal Court to try?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not know whether it is in order to answer that question. It does not arise on this Clause or anything like it.

The CHAIRMAN: I think it has been pointed out previously in the Debate that this Clause deals with the securing of the attendance of any person, but there is no question arising on this Clause as to whether a Prince is or is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.

10.32 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: It is a little difficult to discuss these things in a complete watertight compartment. I was led to ask the question by the reply of my right hon. and learned Friend. He said that the courts of the States would be acting as the agents of the Federal Court and that the Federal Court would be as much the Court of the Princes as it would be the Court of the Viceroy, if I may put it in that way. Therefore, it would be the normal procedure of the Court operating in the State as if it were dealt with by a purely State court. That is what I understood him to say. This difficulty was present in my mind, that the case does not arise of the higher court in a Federated State enforcing its judgment against its ruler. I do not think that sort of case has arisen but it might very possibly arise under the Federation. The question that I am putting to the Attorney-General is this—is a Prince of a Federated State subject to the directions of the Court in regard to the particulars covered by this Clause, which would certainly be incidental to the wider powers to which I alluded? Would
a Prince be subject personally to the directions of the Federal Court?

10.33 p.m

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Noble Lord has travelled outside the Clause but with your permission, Sir, I will try to deal with the point he raises. This Clause deals with what I call the routine of the administration of justice. It has nothing to do with causes of action. It deals with the orders of the Federal Court with regard to securing the attendance of persons, for the discovery or production of documents the investigation or punishment of contempt of court, and matters of that sort. When the Federal Court has made its order and it comes to be enforced against any person either in British India or in a Federated State it will be enforced by the court which has jurisdiction in that part of the Federation.

Viscount WOLMER: Would it be within the power of the Federal Court to demand that the Rajah of a Federated State should appear in person as a witness in a case?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I should think not. I will inquire into the matter but on the spur of the moment I should say certainly not. May I say that although a number of the Princes have called attention to some Clauses to which they entertain an Objection they have never raised any point on the proposals in this Clause.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not understand the argument of the Attorney-General, and I am surprised that on a matter of this importance he is not able to give an answer.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The right hon. Member must not even unintentionally misrepresent me. I gave a plain answer and said that I would look further into it. But I am sure myself that the answer I gave is the right one.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No one can complain of the precaution of the Attorney-General.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am quite right.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like to know in what sense he is right. In his answer he threw an element of doubt. May I ask him specifically, is the ruler of
one of these federated States, some of them very small States and little more than landlords, comprehended in the term "any person"; "securing the attendance of any person"? I gather that the Attorney-General, refreshing himself by contact with those who are naturally keeping in close touch with the details of these discussions, is satisfied that a native ruler would not be liable to be called as a witness before the Federal court; that if he has been guilty of contempt of court he would not be summoned. If that be so, we should like to know.

10.38 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Is it not the fact that there is no original jurisdiction of the Federal court which could possibly give rise to any suit being brought against a Prince in any possible way? He could never be a party to such a case. It could only arise in a case which started in his own courts, and as he is Sovereign in those courts he could only become a party if he wishes to become a party, that is, if he submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the courts. Is it not right that the powers given to the Federal courts in Sub-section (2) are only the same powers which any high court in British India will have as regards territory within its own jurisdiction, and that these powers would never include powers of summoning the Sovereigns of British India States before a court in any matter or of interfering in any way with any person who holds sovereign rights. If that limitation is put on the power of the Federal court does not that exclude the right or power to call the ruler of a Federated State before the court?

10.39 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: As there seems to be an agreement on the part of the highest legal authorities in the land on both sides of the Committee, irrespective of party divisions, I feel some temerity in asking a further question. May I put this case? Suppose there is a case being tried in the Federal Court and that one of the Rajahs, a very small Rajah, in a very remote State, makes a comment upon the case which constitutes by all the principles of jurisprudence contempt of court, there is no redress at all against the Ruler? That, I understand, is the ruling. Although these Princes are to put themselves
under this Federal Court which we are to set up above themselves, yet they, after they have done this act, after they have conceded a part of their sovereign rights, those sovereign rights are to remain intact and they are completely above the law, as much above the law as a sovereign in a, constitutional country. All you can do is to proceed against the Home Secretary or the Vizier or whoever is the Prime Minister of the State. Is that the position? They are inviolable in all circumstances, whether before the English court or before the Federal Court in India. If that is so I should like to have it, in terms which are quite unmistakable, and I reserve my right to make my comments on the reply I receive.

10.41 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My right hon. Friend must not expect me to encourage him to indulge in these generalities. He asked me a question as to whether Rulers are above the law. I do not propose to attempt to answer such a question because I should want to know a great deal more of what my right hon. Friend's question means when he says, "above the law." We are dealing here with a specific enactment in this Clause. I will answer to the best of my ability questions which arise from the Clause, but I do not propose, even if the Chair would allow me, to answer questions framed in such wide and loose and general terms by my right hon. Friend. So far as summoning a Prince before a Federal Court is concerned, which was the original question, I have given an answer in explicit terms. I do not think that a Ruler could be summoned to attend before one of these courts under the powers contained in this Clause. That is a specific answer that I have already given, and I propose to adhere to it.

10.42 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: It is very confusing. The Clause starts by saying:
All authority, civil and judicial, throughout the Federation, shall act in aid of the Federal court.
Then we give the hypothetical case of the Ruler of a federated State defying the Federal court, and I understand the learned Attorney-General to say that that Ruler would not be summonable in such circumstances, that his attendance could not be enforced at the court. The meaning of the Clause is very obscure. My
object is to find out whether the Rulers of federated States are, qua federal, in the position of subjects, if I may put it in that rather crude way, whether they are amenable to the ordinary course of the law in every respect. This Clause covers only a very small point, but it raises this test question. After having listened to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General carefully, 1 am not yet clear as to what is the position. It seems to me that in certain circumstances the Federal court could not compel the attendance of a Rajah before it, although if that individual were not a Rajah it could compel his attendance. Then I ask the learned Attorney-General how he squares that with Sub-section (1) of the Clause which says:
All authority, civil and judicial, throughout the Federation, shall act in aid of the Federal court.
Is an individual who violates Sub-section (1) committing an offence against the law? What is to happen to an individual who violates it?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is not a question of individuals violating it. It is a question of the proper authorities acting in aid of the Federal Court.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is evident that the Government are in a muddle about this matter. From what Chas already emerged during our conversations this evening that is perfectly clear. They are torn between the fear of offending the Princes on the one hand, and on the other hand their own words written in this Bill. They are putting an interpretation on this Clause, which according to the plainest meaning of the English language, it does not bear. They have to declare that a ruler is not a person—

Sir W. DAVISON: Or an authority.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Or an authority, civil or judicial. At any rate I do not think we ought to take up any more time upon it. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."] I am glad I have carried the Committee with me on that point. With a view to bringing the discussion to a conclusion I ask the Attorney-General a question which he cannot say is vague or general because it is on the contrary a concrete and rigidly defined proposition,
namely whether he will accept an Amendment to Sub-section (2) in line 22 to insert after the words "any person" the words "not being a ruler of a native State or a Federated State."

Lord E. PERCY: Or the Governor of a British Province?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I must appeal to the Noble Lord not to bring in new topics and start new hares at this late hour. He has Icing been one of the Government's most assiduous supporters, and I am sure they will not thank him for raising these other questions at this stage, just as I am endeavouring to make a definite proposal to the Government, putting a fine direct point upon this matter, which would bring it to an end. Will the Attorney-General accept words to the effect I have suggested?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I should have thought the answer would be "No," since we are already on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." If my right hon. Friend put down an Amendment on the Report stage to that effect, the answer to it would be that the words are not necessary. If be reads the Clause further, he will see that this Court is to have power to make the orders which any High Court in British India would have power to make in regard to the territory over which it has jurisdiction.

Mr. CHURCHILL: If the Attorney-General assures us that the meaning of the Clause would not be made more clear or precise by the addition which I have suggested and that its meaning is that no ruler can be summoned, then I accept that assurance. After a great deal of difficulty which might easily have been avoided the Attorney-General has at last afforded us a full comprehension of the purpose of the Government in this Clause. I thank him for that, but he could have said straight away without any of these hesitations and consultations, these to-ings and fro-ings, that this Clause had no effect upon the princely status of the Rulers, every one of whom will be in a position, though they have subscribed to the Federation, to defy the law and flout the Federal court.

CLAUSE 201.—(Letters of Request to Federated States.)

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.51 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: This Clause really raises the same principle in a more extreme form, and perhaps this will give the Attorney-General an opportunity of making the position clear. The point of the Clause is quite simple but here we are really faced with one of the fundamental difficulties of Federation; and even after all the time spent on Clause 200 I am not quite clear that I do not think the Committee are clear as to how far it extends. Clause 201 raises a very simple, direct issue, though a vitally important one. It says:
Where in any case the Federal Court require a special case to be stated or restated by, or remit a case to, a High Court in a Federated State, or require the aid of the civil or judicial authorities in a Federated State, the Federal Court shall cause letters of request in that behalf to be sent to the Ruler of the State, and the Ruler shall cause such communication to be made to the High Court or to any judicial or civil authority as the circumstances may require.
The question I want to ask the Attorney-General is what would happen if the Ruler of a State refused to obey that Clause? If he will tell me that he will tell me exactly what the effect of the Clause is.

10.53 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This Clause is framed in this way in order that the appropriate phrase, "letters of request" may be used in regard to a Sovereign Ruler instead of the expression of a direct order to, or something of that sort. Any lawyer is familiar with the expression "letters of request," which is a phrase used when one Sovereign Ruler has to make a communication to another with regard to the performance of some act necessary for the administration of justice in the first of the two countries. In this Clause it is merely an enactment to show proper respect to a Sovereign Ruler, without the necessity of an order being directed to him to state a case, that letters of request shall be addressed to him. Then I am asked what is to happen if a Ruler does not comply with the request contained in the last two or three lines of the Clause. I entirely
decline to contemplate that a Ruler will not comply with the request. It is found in practice between Sovereign States that when letters of request are addressed it is not customary to decline to act upon them, and I do not think that that situation will arise.

10.54 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: I am rying to find out whether the Ruler of a Federated State is in the position of a functionary of the Federation or whether he is an independent Sovereign. My right hon. Friend really has no right to draw back in a tone of voice as if I was saying something either indecent or grossly disrespectful to the whole order of Princes. That is not the point at all. The point is that when you are revising a Constitution it is an elementary consideration that you should see that the thing reads, as it were. You should see, in constructing the machine, that the cogwheels fit and that you are putting on the Statute Book a Clause which is capable of being worked. Every Constitution, every working machine, has some outward sanction. If the Attorney-General, to take a concrete instance, was instructed by the proper authorities to do something which it was his duty to do, and he refused, there is a remedy known to the British Constitution. I am not suggesting that my right hon. and learned Friend would ever be so forgetful of his duty as to put himself in such a position; I am only pointing out that if he refused to carry out an order given him by the proper authority to do something which it was his duty to do, there is a complete remedy known to our Constitution. He would lose his job, and another Atttorney-General would be found in his place.
What is the outward sanction here? What is going to happen if a Ruler refuses to carry out his instructions? The importance of this point is that from the beginning there has been confusion or thought as to whether this is to be a Federation of independent sovereign States or whether all the members of the Federation are members of one political entity. That difficulty will crop up at various points, and we are certainly bound to examine them wherever they do crop up. If you slur over them in discussing them in this Bill, you will not remove the difficulty, which will crop up directly
you try to put the Federation into being or directly the Princes have been able to examine the matter further with the aid of their legal advisers. Therefore, I say it is monstrous for the Attorney-General to treat this as a most improper question to bring up or as something which, if I was a. decently minded person, I should not think of doing. I want to know how sanction is to be given to this Clause. Is the Ruler of the State.

a functionary of the Federation or an independent sovereign?

Mr. BAILEY: This is such an important point that I hope the Attorney-General will reply.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 27.

Division No.134.]
AYES.
[10.58 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Albery, Irving James
Fremantle, Sir Francis
McKie, John Hamilton


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Aske, Sir Robert William
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Assheton, Ralph
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Attlee, Clement Richard
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Balniel, Lord
Gluckstain, Louis Halle
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Goff, Sir Park
Martin, Thomas B.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Goldle, Noel B.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Bateman, A. L.
Gower, Sir Robert
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Milne, Charles


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Milner, Major James


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Grimston, R. V.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Blindell, James
Groves, Thomas E.
Moors, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Boulton, W. W.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Morrison, William Shepherd


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hanbury, Cecil
Munro, Patrick


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Burghley, Lord
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Paling, Wilfred


Burnett, John George
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Butler, Richard Austen
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Parkinson, John Allen


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hicks, Ernest George
Patrick, Colin M.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Pearson, William G.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Penny, Sir George


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hornby, Frank
Percy, Lord Eustace


Cleary, J. J.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Petherick, M.


Colman, N. C. D.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Conant, R. J. E.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cook, Thomas A.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Cooper, A. Duff
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Copeland, Ida
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L
Jamieson, Douglas
Rea, Walter Russell


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Crooke, J. Smedley
John, William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Cross, R. H.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Daggar, George
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Sandys, Duncan


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lawson, John James
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Davies, Stephen Owen
Leckie, J. A.
Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-in-F.)


Dickle, John P.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Liddall, Walter S.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E:


Duggan, Hubert John
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Dunglass, Lord
Llewellin, Major John J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Eastwood, John Francis
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Stevenson, James


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Stones, James


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Loftus, Pierce C.
Storey, Samuel


Eimley, Viscount
Logan, David Gilbert
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ)
Lunn, William
Sutcliffe, Harold


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Mabane, William
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Fleming, Edward Lasceiles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Tinker, John Joseph


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)



Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Wilmot, John
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wilson, Lt..-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)
and Sir Walter Womersley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. (Blackpool)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Atholl, Duchess of
Everard, W. Lindsay
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Broadbent, Colonel John
Greene, William P. C.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Brown, Brig-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hartington, Marquess of
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Wise, Alfred R.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Knox, Sir Alfred
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lees-Jones, John



Donner, P. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Remer, John R.
Mr. Raikes and Mr. Lennox-Boyd.


Resolution agreed to.

CLAUSE 202.—(Law declared by Federal Court and Privy Council to be binding on all courts.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11.7 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: rose—

It being after Eleven o'Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend by a further period of two years the period during which the powers of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland to prepare and settle schemes under the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1930, may be exercised,
it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses incurred by the Department during the aforesaid extended period so far as those expenses are not recovered in the manner provided by the said Act of 1930.

Orders of the Day — VAGRANCY BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Brigadier-General Spears.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes after Eleven of the Clock.